Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Child Support Agency

Mr. Simon Burns: Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order on a matter which is causing grave concern and anger to the Opposition, and which, I suspect, in the light of previous statements you have made, will cause you considerable frustration? It is a matter of abuse of the House by the House not being told first of important changes in Government policy.
It is a well-known fact that the Government are hoping on Monday next week to make a statement to the House on changes to the Child Support Agency. It is also now a well-known fact that yesterday there was systematic briefing of journalists of what the Government proposed to say in their statement. That briefing has been reflected in this morning's newspapers, in all broadsheets, typified by the front page of The Guardian. Furthermore, there was some briefing of Sunday newspapers yesterday. There will be further briefings today of Sunday newspapers, and on Sunday, in the morning, the Secretary of State for Social Security will be taking part in a television programme, during which she will further be outlining the proposed changes to the CSA.
The House will not hear these changes until 3.30 pm on Monday at the earliest. You have often said, Madam Speaker, that you deprecate the House of Commons not being told of this sort of thing first. May I ask you what can be done to ensure that the House is not abused in this way, and that it is told first?
Furthermore, in the light of a number of statements that you have made, what can be done to stop the frustrating situation in which you voice deeply held views yet no one seems to take a blind bit of notice of what you are saying?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, the Child

Support Agency, ever since it was introduced in 1992 by the Tory Government—[Interruption.]—with all-party support, has been found wanting over long periods.
I reckon that thousands of parliamentary questions have been tabled about the agency. I voted to scrap it several years ago. However, many of us have been involved in a campaign to get rid of it. I have been taking part in that consultation. I have raised the matter within the parliamentary Labour party. I have raised it at every opportunity. I have raised the matter inside the House and outside. I have made representations even to somebody in the House of Lords, which is a big step for me, to get rid of the CSA.
I find it fanciful that we cannot finish up with something in the newspapers when a gang of Labour Members, and perhaps some Opposition Members, are anxious to get rid of the agency. I am looking forward to the statement on Monday. I hope that some of the briefings and leakings are not as they have been put forward. I hope that the statement will be even better than what we have heard so far. I am waiting to be surprised on Monday.

Madam Speaker: No doubt there is considerable press speculation on an issue such as this, where there has been much public debate over a number of months. Nevertheless, if there has been direct leaking and briefing of policy changes, I deprecate it most strongly. The House is fully aware of my firm views on this matter.
I am most anxious that, if there is any new policy or any change of policy, properly elected Members of this place are told first before any section of the media. I cannot deprecate strongly enough the leaks and the briefings that go on, perhaps behind our backs, in such matters. I have taken all steps possible through all the channels available to me, and I shall continue to do so, to ensure that all such policy matters come before the House before any section of the media.

BILL PRESENTED

LANDMINES

Mr. Secretary Cook, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Secretary Clare Short, Mr. Tony Lloyd and Dr. John Reid, presented a Bill to promote the control of anti-personnel landmines; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13 July, and to be printed [Bill 220].

Orders of the Day — Fireworks Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 10

TRAINING COURSES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6, line 6, after ("State",) insert—

("() authorise the making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licences,")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mrs. Gilroy.]

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I hope that I may be allowed to make a few comments—after all, there has been little debate. The Bill received its Second Reading without debate, and it spent only one hour in Committee. When the Bill reached the House of Lords, considerable concern was expressed about its wide-ranging regulatory powers and Henry VIII clauses. One only has to make a cursory reading of the Bill to see that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, do whatever he pleases to regulate the fireworks industry. That is a worrying development.
The Bill should not be a private Member's Bill—it should be a Government Bill. The amendments go to the heart of the Bill, as they deal with the Secretary of State being given more powers to regulate closely the amount of fees to be set for training purposes. I take a great interest in fireworks, because, for a time, I was the Minister responsible for the fireworks industry. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who is sitting in front of me—is also a former Consumer Affairs Minister, and I think that he too was responsible for the fireworks industry.
When I had that responsibility, there was continual pressure for more regulation. I am now getting very concerned about the matter. It can be said, on any matter, that the industry should not be allowed to set its own fees for training purposes. One could argue that about any industry. One could argue that, as we are talking about the fireworks industry and are dealing with potentially dangerous substances, the Secretary of State should be given wide-ranging powers.
My hon. Friends should look at the amendment closely. It will be said that the private sector is allowed to set the fees, it could start charging exorbitant fees for training, or it could provide slipshod training, and therefore the Secretary of State must be involved. That argument could be used about any training course in any industry. I am not sure that that, of itself, is a strong argument. I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), or the Minister when he replies to this debate, will deal with that point.

Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend is making an important point about training.

Will he reconcile the Government's attitude to this matter with their publicly stated commitment to the principle of training and enterprise councils, which holds that employers should regulate training since they best understand the industrial needs in their sector of the economy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is wide of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Leigh: I will not respond to that point, except to say that what is pertinent to the Lords amendments is whether the industry itself—which is best equipped to know the circumstances in which it operates—should set the level of fees for training or whether it should be the Secretary of State. It should worry my hon. Friends that this is another instance in which the Secretary of State will set the level of fees.
It could equally be said that, if the matter were left to the industry, it could subsidise training to all and sundry. It could expand the market for the most extravagant products and could thereby distort the market. That argument will be used by those in favour of the amendments. I do not believe that the amendments are necessary. They make a bad and dangerous Bill even worse, and even more regulatory. It grieves me, having spent so many years being concerned with the DTI and deregulation, to see another instance of even more regulation being provided.
The prejudices that people use against the private sector setting fees are unsustainable. There is possibly a danger of abuse if the Secretary of State is given wide-ranging powers. If the Secretary of State is too involved in the process, private enterprise may be gradually prevented from setting its own high-quality training courses and its own fees.

Mr. Eric Forth: Given my hon. Friend's experience in the DTI and of this sector, has he begun to consider the manpower and bureaucracy that is likely to be involved not only in the licensing process—the Bill refers to "licensed persons"—but in the Secretary of State getting involved in
the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licenses"?
Does that not give my hon. Friend pause for thought, given his experience?

Mr. Leigh: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and he and I have practical experience. It is some years since my right hon. Friend and I dealt with matters in the DTI. I pay tribute to the expertise of the officials who work in the Department. I recognise that they are not unduly bureaucratic, and that they have the public interest at heart. I make no criticism of them at all. However, I wonder whether they have the necessary expertise to understand what is going on in all aspects of a complex industry.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government have accepted the amendments. I do not know where they came from—presumably the Minister can elucidate. I cannot understand why the Government appear to have so little confidence in the ability of the industry to regulate itself.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the


Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), do we have any indication of how much the new structure will cost? It is not a cost-free exercise to give the Secretary of State those powers. There is no doubt that the money spent on that form of bureaucracy could be spent, for example, on assisting the national health service to give due regard to cancer screening—a matter which is currently exercising the NHS.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not go wide of the amendments.

Mr. Leigh: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has followed the debate on fireworks, but there has been a sustained attack on the fireworks industry for many years. It is all about taking away people's traditional enjoyment of their own private fireworks parties.
The Bill is part of a wider agenda, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I fought vigorously. That agenda is the imposition of more and more regulation and cost on the fireworks industry to make it more difficult for ordinary people to buy fireworks and enjoy them in their back gardens—something which, I am sure, my hon. Friends and I enjoyed when we were young. The Bill is part of a wider agenda to ensure that we have only a small number of highly regulated displays, run by professionals who have been forced to undergo expensive training courses, with fees, presumably, set by the Secretary of State. That is part of the wider agenda.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman say what discussions he has had with the industry, particularly on its concerns about fees?

Mr. Leigh: I have not had any recent discussions with the industry on the matter, but I have been provided with a briefing note about its concerns. It is perfectly justifiable for Members of Parliament to speak from briefing notes. People in the industry are concerned, and I am dealing with their worries.

Mr. Richard Burden: The industry supports the Bill—it is not asking to set the fees—so who has provided him with the briefing note?

Mr. Leigh: What I will say—

Hon. Members: Tell the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own speech; who provides information is not a matter for the House.

Mr. Leigh: As someone who has taken an interest in the fireworks industry over the years, I am perfectly entitled to speak to these matters. If hon. Members do not find my comments interesting, they might listen to Mr. Mason, a director of consumer safety and standards, who told the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation:
I think that I would prefer to see the private sector solution if we can generate enough interest… If there were a fee payable, I think the same comments that I have made about publicly set fees would apply. We would expect them to cover costs in line with

Treasury guidance, but no more. Underneath that, there are the course fees that these licensed persons charge the general public to attend the courses. Our normal expectation there I think is that we rely on competition to drive down course fees to the appropriate level. We are talking really of either commercial or voluntary organisations operating in a competitive market. That is not to say, however, that we might not find ourselves in a position where there were very few organisations offering training and that there was concern about an exploitation of what is after all a form of statutory monopoly. We are assuming that certain people can only have access to fireworks after they have gone through this procedure. We would certainly want the ability, under those circumstances, to fix a maximum level of fee, though again it would probably be a maximum rather than an absolute level because, even under those circumstances, you would hope that competition could drive down the prices further.
Mr. Mason made a serious case—that the private sector should be able to set the fees—although I wonder whether he was right to say that it was desirable to set a maximum fee. The problem with maximum fees is that they quickly become the going rate. If the usual forces of competition apply, there is no reason why a sensible fee should not be set. I am not sure why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to set a fee, let alone a maximum fee.

Mrs. Gilroy: The significance of the training scheme is that it would confer a statutory right to buy specific dangerous fireworks. Surely it must be right to limit the charges on what is, in effect, a right to buy particular fireworks.

Mr. Leigh: One could use that argument about any regulated industry and say that the Secretary of State should always be able to intervene. I am not sure why it should be assumed that, if the private sector set fees, it would drift into collusion. People in the industry are responsible; they are perfectly capable of setting fees to cover their costs and to allow others to enter the market. I hope that the Minister will explain why he thinks that he should become involved.
Bodies hoping to offer fireworks training will presumably be able to negotiate with the Government about obtaining permission, and come to some formal or informal understanding about the nature of the training, the length of the courses and the appropriate fees. Presumably the Secretary of State has other powers closely to regulate those matters and to ensure that people in the industry are not abusing their position of trust. I do not understand why it is thought that the Secretary of State does not already have sufficient powers to ensure proper compliance.
There is concern that the Secretary of State will set too high a fee. I am sure that she would not set out to do so, and that she would want to act entirely fairly. I do not suppose that she will be driven by revenue considerations, as the amount of money that the Treasury received from the fees would be small. I am more worried that safety campaigners will press for higher fees to limit the number of training courses and make it more difficult for people to provide them.
That has happened in other sectors. For example, people who are concerned about firearms use regulations to press the Secretary of State to erect ever higher barriers—a sin tax, so to speak—to prevent people from entering the market. I believe that the Secretary of State will be under continual political pressure from the well-organised group that is suspicious of fireworks to increase the fees prohibitively.
Some may think that that would result in greater safety, but it could result in less safety. If fees are too high, fireworks organisers may be encouraged to cut corners and train fewer people. There are worrying precedents, especially in relation to firearms, of what happens when the Secretary of State becomes involved.
Anyone who has taken an interest in consumer affairs over the years will know of the increasing involvement of trading standards officers and the growth of regulation and Government interference. If the Secretary of State is too closely involved, local authority trading standards officers will also be involved. That would create a vicious circle of a drive for high fees and a reduction in the number of courses.

Mr. Forth: As we have not been given the pleasure and privilege of an explanation of the amendment, we must interpret it ourselves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment suggests two sets of fees, one for those who train and the other for those who are trained? The regime will have a multiplicity of licences and fees, so the dangers that he highlights will be manifold.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Be brief.

Mr. Leigh: Neither the Bill nor the amendment tell us exactly how the training courses will be organised, who will take part or what the fees on industry will be. All we have is broad regulation-making powers being conferred on the Secretary of State, as is the case throughout the Bill. We are discussing a serious matter, as presumably the amendment would seriously curtail who the industry can train, how much it can charge and where training courses will be held. The Minister may wish to reassure us on that point, and to claim that that will not happen, but the history of fireworks legislation and of the House's interest in it demonstrates that that fear needs to be raised here, and that he needs to deal with it.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): We will come to the history of fireworks—it is the hon. Gentleman's history, too.

Mr. Leigh: The Minister says that it is my history, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I have nothing to fear or hide about what we did on those matters. Throughout the period of Conservative government, we achieved for the industry a gradual improvement in public safety and awareness about fireworks. Certainly my right hon. Friend and I were responsible for expensive advertising campaigns.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into a wide general debate. He must speak to the amendments.

Mr. Leigh: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led astray by the Minister, who was making a political point and diverting me from my interest in the narrow amendments.
The public sector might provide unfair competition for private sector training providers. I do not know whether the Minister will deny that that will happen. Presumably a local authority could offer a course in a given area, and so would become a training provider, in competition with the private sector. I do not know whether, under the amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to prevent unfair competition.
For the life of me I cannot understand—perhaps I have overlooked some matters—why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to become so closely involved. Is it because she does not trust the firework industry, or because there is a history of people acting in collusion? I do not know. I should have thought that the firework manufacturers would be the training providers. I cannot imagine anyone from outside the industry providing training.

Mr. Rowe: There seems to be a real possibility that the training may become a candidate for a national vocational qualification course. As the provision of NVQ courses is often the responsibility of training and enterprise councils, my hon. Friend's hope that training will remain primarily in the hands of the industry seems rather far of the mark.

Mr. Leigh: That may well be the case. It is difficult to speculate on what will happen, as there has been no debate on those matters in this House, and only sparse debate in the other place, which is why the debates this morning are important.
The counter-argument to mine is that, as only the manufacturer will provide the training because he will have the ranges and storage facilities in place, he could use his market power to dominate training, and presumably could thereby drive other people from the market; or manufacturers could use training as a loss leader. The argument might go—perhaps we will hear more about that—that they will use their profits from other sectors of the industry to subsidise their training courses. If that were true, and it resulted in training costs being forced down, I am not sure that we should necessarily worry too much about it.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend has just said that, if training were provided by manufacturers, the cost could be covered by other sectors of their business. Many fireworks companies are also involved in defence contracts, which generate considerable revenue from the sale of pyrotechnics to the armed forces. All the evidence is that the strategic defence review, which we might see next week, will fall heavily on the procurement sector, so the defence-related part of the firework industry's business may become much smaller, and the revenue will not be there. The industry is going to be in for a tough time in the next few years and the Bill will do nothing but impose extra financial burdens on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Bringing the defence industry into the matter would be going far too wide of the amendments.

Mr. Leigh: Of course I do not want to get involved in the problems of the defence industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—there are other forums for doing so—but I think that we can debate what the amendments will mean to the fireworks industry and those companies that are owned


by defence companies, and whether the argument that we are dealing with powerful companies, which will drive their competitors out of the market, is valid. I am not sure that that is entirely true, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). I do not think that it will happen. I do not think that a few companies will use their market power to subsidise training courses and drive competitors out.
One could say that the companies would use their power only to give training on their own products, with minimum training on those of competitors. However, one could argue that about any industry. I accept that, with fireworks, we are dealing with potentially dangerous products, but if we go down that route, where will it end? Of what other industry will it be said that, because we are dealing with a potentially dangerous product, the Secretary of State must get involved, insist on training courses, regulate them, and set the level of fees?

Mr. Rowe: As my hon. Friend may know, in the past four years, four people have been killed by fireworks, but, on average, five people are killed every year playing ball games. Are we to have a set of regulations, at great expense, dominating—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must get back to the amendments, which are about fees and training facilities.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent does the House a service by reminding us that, because of the gradual increase in safety awareness, for which the previous Government were responsible and which they promoted for many years, there has been a huge decline in the number of deaths compared with 20 or 30 years ago, and that great progress has been made—although, of course, any such death is very sad.
I do not know why the Government felt it necessary to use the private Member's Bill system to introduce the legislation, and why they are using the Lords amendments to make it even more draconian. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent mentioned ball games, but one could talk about car manufacturers or the motor industry, which is a far more serious problem—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not move on to car manufacturers. He must confine himself to the amendments.

Mr. Leigh: I was merely trying to point out that the fact that there have been deaths and that one is dealing with potentially dangerous products—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the hon. Gentleman talks about deaths or any of those other matters, he is going into the generalities of the Bill. The amendments are specific, as I have already said, and mention fees and training courses. He must confine his remarks to the amendments.

Mr. Leigh: The fireworks industry is complex and experienced. Over the years, it has run training courses to ensure a gradual increase in competence in the use of fireworks and in safety awareness. It is perfectly entitled

to set its own fees and to conduct training courses as it wishes, or with a light regulatory tough. The Secretary of State has not made out the case for setting fees.

Mr. Owen Paterson: When my hon. Friend was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, did his civil servants consider state-run or privately funded training schemes?

Mr. Leigh: My recollection is that that was not considered.

Mr. Forth: My recollection is that we were very reluctant to resort to elaborate licensing schemes and byzantine arrangements such as those in the Bill, because we judged that that would be disadvantageous in principle, and could harm the very people we were trying to protect, and indeed employment prospects in the industry and beyond. We always had employment at the forefront of our minds.

Mr. Leigh: We were under widespread pressure from safety campaigners to try to limit the ability of people to hold fireworks parties, but we never considered imposing such draconian regulations on the industry, as that was against our philosophy.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has spoken of training courses being regulated by central Government or by the industry, but he has left out the third option, which is local government. There is a case for local authorities assuming the responsibility for running courses and setting fees. Has he made any assessment of the costs that might be imposed on local authorities, which are probably in the best position, geographically, to do the work?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be brief.

Mr. Colvin: How would local authority involvement impinge on the provisions in the Bill?

Mr. Leigh: I do not believe that local authorities should become more involved, because central Government already imposes many obligations on them, and because they would operate through trading standards officers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I, in our previous incarnation, had constant run-ins with such officers, who have constantly imposed more and more onerous burdens on industry. A more local structure is not necessarily more benign. The correct route to take is by way of the private industry, which knows its own business best.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ingenious suggestion of our hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) runs into two difficulties: the diversity of regimes that would emerge, which would lead to inconsistencies, and the potential—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I was a bit too relaxed in allowing the question of local authorities to come into the debate. We should not go into detail on what local authorities can or cannot do in the matter. We must keep to the amendments, which concern the powers of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Leigh: The subject is in the clause, but of course I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not know why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be involved in setting fees. The industry is highly competitive, and there is no reason why it should not be left to its own devices to ensure that good training courses are available throughout the country to teach people how to use fireworks safely, or why the people who provide those courses should not be able to set appropriate fees.
What can possibly be gained by the Secretary of State setting fees? If they are set too high, people may be deterred from taking part in the courses, and if they are set too low, the courses may not be sustainable or properly run. The Secretary of State runs a Department with a budget of only about £1 billion.

Mr. Forth: Only?

Mr. Leigh: It is small in comparison with the budget of, say, the Department of Social Security. The Secretary of State does not have the time or the resources to know what the fees should be.
The Bill is highly regulatory. It should be a Government Bill, not a private Member's Bill. The Government have introduced it to regulate an industry that has provided innocent enjoyment for millions of people for many years.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking merely for our edification and enlightenment, or does he intend to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Leigh: It is difficult for me to answer that point and remain in order. I am unhappy about the Bill. I do not believe that it has been properly debated. It is highly regulatory, and I would be happier if it had not been introduced. It is, however, possible that the Minister can reassure us, and tell us that it is necessary and will save lives.
It is difficult to oppose in principle a Bill that the Minister will tell us will save lives. Any life lost, and especially a child's, should worry us. I am concerned about whether the Bill will in fact save lives, or whether, by imposing more and more onerous obligations on the industry, it will encourage people to cut corners. It often happens that, if one takes away people's right to run an industry in their own way, there comes a point at which the rules and regulations become unsustainable, and the industry tries to get a round them.
We have achieved a huge amount in the industry by way of consent, moving step by step every year and encouraging public awareness, but the Bill represents a step change. Before we make the amendments, we should have a proper debate and consider whether they will save any lives at all. If they will simply impose more rules and regulations on a highly regulated industry, we should reject them.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: It may be helpful if I rise early to outline the Opposition's attitude to the Bill. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). I can testify that it is an anxious business to pilot a private Member's Bill through the House. I imagine that she feels as anxious as ever today. It is an achievement to have got so far, and I wish her well.
The amendments raise the subject of charges. Despite sotto voce—perhaps not so sotto—remarks from the Minister, it is important that charges and fees should be carefully examined. I served during almost all the previous Parliament on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. All too often, once charges have been imposed, Departments try to put them up, sometimes exponentially, and the Committee raised that matter over and over again with at least some Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was right to raise that issue, and to point out that the Bill contains sweeping powers, sometimes called Henry VIII powers. The House need not take my word alone on that; the Bill has incurred the wrath of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in the other place. Lord Annaly told the other place that the Committee recommended that
the fees charged for granting a licence to both training providers and those wishing to attend training courses should either be approved by the Secretary of State or be subject to a limit specified in regulations. These amendments fulfil that requirement".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 665–6.]
I hope that the Minister will listen to another important point that affects him directly and that relates both to the amendments and to later Bills. It was suggested to the Select Committee that a ministerial assurance would, in certain circumstances, do the trick. The Committee robustly made it clear that it would not be satisfied by that. Ministers of all Governments, but particularly of the current one, should take note.
Our view is that the amendments, which were debated at some length in the other place, are sensible. To some extent, they fulfil requirements set out by the Select Committee in trying to water down the sweeping powers that the Bill gives to Ministers. We support calls in both Houses for safeguards. We are not against the Bill in principle and we do not intend to divide the House on the amendments. After proper scrutiny—I emphasise those words—we shall wish the Bill and the amendments a fair wind.

Mr. Collins: I want to comment on the relationship between the amendments and the other provisions of the Bill. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states:
The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the content of…regulations and cannot at this stage be predicted. In particular, the regulations may confer power on the Secretary of State to provide training courses. The Secretary of State will have a duty to consult before regulations are made".
The amendments, which will broaden the powers of the Secretary of State to allow him to provide for the charging of fees, will, even more than before, mean that the House is being asked to pass a Bill without any real understanding of its financial effects. That is not a good basis on which to legislate. The financial effects of legislation should be set out in some detail in advance, and it is a matter of concern that the amendments will introduce even more uncertainty about the Bill's financial implications. That is a bad precedent. The Minister is waving something at me; would he care to intervene?

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member of Parliament, so let me draw his


attention to the regulatory appraisal. I should have thought that he would have read it if he wanted to make an informed contribution to debate.

Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the Minister. He and I sat together in the Standing Committee on the Competition Bill. He will recall that the standard regulatory appraisals brought before Committees by the Government are seriously slipshod and have been greatly condemned by industrial bodies. They are deeply misleading and, frankly, they offer no basis for serious consideration.
The amendments broaden uncertainty about the financial implications of the Bill, even though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has said, the implications for the economy as a whole are likely to be relatively small.

Mr Rowe: One of the dangers of Bills such as this is the precedent created for others. If the Government wake up to the fact that 141 people die on average every year in swimming accidents, they may wish to bring in exactly the same kind of regulation for swimming.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. I have already said that it is out of order to talk about other matters.

Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is right to say that the issues raised by the amendments range more widely. We must be conscious that the House is an administrative and deliberative body, and we must be aware of the potential implications of any precedents that we may set, even on a Friday morning.

Mr. Colvin: When the Minister gives the Government's view on the Bill, he will be able to tell us which measures they are likely to introduce. The Bill is essentially an enabling measure, and we should have some idea of the financial implications of fees, training costs and other matters. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give the House some idea of how he will use the Bill's enabling powers.

Mr. Collins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We look forward with great anticipation to a detailed speech from the Minister. We hope that he will set out the principles on which the Government propose to implement the Bill, and give some detail of the precise levels of charges to be implemented for training courses, if the amendments are agreed to. We would like some indication of how the charges will be reviewed because, given that the Government have lost control of inflation, the chances are that the fees may need to increase rapidly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Minister replies, he will reply to the amendments.

Mr. Forth: I doubt it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will make sure that the Minister replies to the amendments, just as I am making sure that everyone speaks to the amendments.

Mr. Collins: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the Minister will bear that injunction in mind, as will I.
My second point is that the amendments would, like all other regulation-making powers in the Bill, be subject to clause 2(1), which states:
The Secretary of State may by regulations…make any provision which he considers appropriate for the purpose of securing that fireworks are used safely.
In other words, the power to charge fees for the grant or variation of licences relating to training would be subject to the overriding provision that it should be subject to his or her judgment about how fireworks can be used safely.
The fees may not be decided by financial considerations, such as their affordability or being charged at a rate that provides good value for money, but will be subject to the Secretary of State's interpretation of what is necessary to provide safety. If the Secretary of State can charge fees for such a wide range of training services, he could use the power to drive certain businesses out of the sector if he believed that it was an important means of achieving greater safety for the public, animals or others set out in clause 2. He could use the fee structure as a weapon against a company that Department of Trade and Industry officials thought was acting unsafely, but were unable to get under any other provision. It could be used against a company that had, in some way, offended officials. It is a dangerous power to be in the hands of Government officials or the Secretary of State.

Mr. Burden: As the hon. Gentleman has linked the amendment to the general issue of safety, will he clarify whether he wants the Bill to pass?

Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The Bill is flawed, but it seeks to achieve important objectives. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) give the position of the official Opposition. I regard my Front-Bench colleagues as a source of great wisdom on all matters and, in due course, I shall no doubt be influenced by what he said. While Labour Members are at liberty to try to stretch out the debate if they so wish, I want to return narrowly to the amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you explained earlier how you would try to ensure that the Minister replied in some detail. He must give an assurance in the Official Report, which can be studied in detail by the industry, that there is no question of the Government using the powers that they would be granted if the amendments were passed, or any of the Bill's provisions, to drive companies out of the firework sector for any reason other than that they are breaching clear, safety-based regulations. Will the Minister assure us that there is no question of the Government, or any arm thereof, using the powers to impose licences and charges for training purposes in order to drive companies out of the sector? It is important to get that assurance; I hope that we can look to the Minister for it.
In debating these amendments, we have been able to start—only start—to examine some of the implications of a complicated Bill which is likely to have implications across a wide range of sectors. It is important to consider them properly and thoroughly. When the Minister replies, it is important that he establishes in detail the Government's position across the range of issues raised


by the Bill. A skimpy 30-second reply would not be adequate. I hope that we have started a proper examination of legislation that is likely to affect people for many years to come, and I hope that that will be reflected in the debate in coming months.

Mr. Forth: We are considering amendments to clause 10. In judging them, it is important to place them in the context of the opening words of clause 10, which set the tone for our judgment about their value or otherwise. The key words are at the beginning of the clause, which states:
If fireworks regulations specify conditions relating to the satisfactory completion of a course, or courses, of training in the use of fireworks, they may make provision for courses".
Straight away we have a suggestion of the problems that are likely to arise from the provisions not only of clause 10, but of the amendments.
The introduction of the words "satisfactory completion" immediately poses the questions of who judges whether the training courses are satisfactory and who judges whether the people giving the training courses, and those receiving them, are operating satisfactorily. I shall return to that later, but I wanted to show the difficulty when we get involved in elaborate regimes of licensing and prohibition of the sort set out in the Bill. We shall have to turn our minds, in judging fees, to the context of
satisfactory completion of a course, or courses".
That will provide a useful benchmark against which to judge the later provisions of clause 10.
Several hon. Members asked whether, as the clause suggests, courses should be provided directly by the Secretary of State. That implies that they would be run by the DTI, and the clause admits that as a possibility. In that case, the fees would apply only to those receiving the training courses. We are immediately confronted by the possibility of an additional bureaucracy run directly by the Department to provide the training required under clause 10, should the Secretary of State wish to invoke it. The clause starts, "If fireworks regulations specify"; it does not require such regulations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, the Minister should say up front whether the Secretary of State has it in mind to invoke the provisions of clause 10. If she does not, we have spent much time rather needlessly. It would be valuable—indeed, it is essential—if the Minister told us the Secretary of State's intentions. That point also applies to the provisions of clause 10(1)(a), (b) and (c), because it would make a difference to the debate on Lords amendments on fee levels if we had some idea of what the Minister had in mind. This would apply either to the direct provision of courses by the DTI or to courses provided by
a body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State".
As was noted earlier, other bodies could be involved, in which case the later provisions of clause 10 and the amendments would come into effect.
Then we come to "licensed persons", which is where the concerns expressed earlier are most clear. As I interpret the clause—I am open to correction—there are two distinct levels of licensing and operation and, therefore, of fees. The first level would be the provisions

in the amendment and clause 10 on the regime for the licensing by the Secretary of State of the providers of training. That immediately opens all the normal questions that arise in such a process. It must be determined whether the fees are at a level sufficient to attract people to provide the training on a business basis. We are, presumably, talking about private providers who would not only have to provide satisfactory training—we will return to how that will be judged—but provide it profitably, because they would be private sector businesses, unless local authorities were used. That opens a different possibility. We have to bear in mind always the fees that providers would pass on to those whom they trained.
We are into a morass of bureaucracy; we have no guidance about the number of bodies. I am not aware that it has ever been mentioned. The Minister will want to spend some time giving us an idea of the number of bodies or licensed persons that he thinks will be necessary to obtain the quality of training needed to deliver the level of safety that he has in mind, in the bureaucratic mess that would be created.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the structure of what is proposed—he is setting out the questions clearly—there is a potential interplay between fees for the granting of a licence and fees that are determined by the Secretary of State for the charging for attendance at courses? If that interaction works in the wrong way, the Secretary of State may deter able people from applying to become licensed persons, and hence restrict the supply of trade.

Mr. Forth: That is a crucial point, on which I may wish to elaborate in a moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it at this stage.
The relationships at every level of the provision in clause 10 will, I suspect, provide enormous challenges to the Department and the Secretary of State, and create an enormous number of problems. We are necessarily talking about a complex set of interrelationships between the judgment of the Secretary of State, the number of people whom she would wish to license to carry out the important task provided for in clause 10, and the number of people she would expect to apply for and to need the training required to provide the level of safety assurance that the Bill is presumably all about in the first place.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend think that only one level of fee will be declared by the Secretary of State, or more than one? Some people who have spent their life in the pyrotechnics industry are probably fully qualified in any case, but if they have not been through a course, they may not be allowed to operate. Will they be charged a fee? Will they be charged a different fee from that charged to a parent or schoolteacher who wants to qualify to run a fireworks party? These are complex issues.

Mr. Forth: Indeed they are. My hon. Friend's question raises another interesting point that I had not thought of, on which my hon. Friend may wish to elaborate if I do not. The point is whether there will have to be exemptions from the regime for exactly the sort of people whom my hon. Friend describes. There must be—must there not?—people with relevant qualifications, training and experience who could be exempted from being trainers or being trained before they could carry out the activities


covered by the Bill. That in turn raises some important considerations about whether these are blanket provisions with no exemptions or whether there will be reasonable provision for exemptions.
I want to return to the theme that I was touching on, because it is important. Unless we have some idea of numbers, we are all debating the matter rather in a fog. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State envisage many providers coming forward to do the training? If so, that assumes that many people will apply to receive the training in order to operate fireworks for the delight and pleasure of many people. Unless we know about the numbers, we cannot make a proper judgment about the effectiveness of the clause or about the competitive or non-competitive regime that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned earlier.
If we are to judge how we shall vote on the amendments and our view of the Bill, it is incumbent on the Minister—he bears a heavy responsibility in the House this morning—to give adequate and full answers to the questions that have been raised in the debate.

Mr. Burden: It is important that we get on the record the right hon. Gentleman's position. He referred to his views on the amendments and the Bill. Is he saying that, if the amendments were accepted, he would or would not vote for the Bill? Is he saying that, if the amendments were not accepted, he would or would not vote for the Bill?

Mr. Forth: Fortunately, at this stage, procedurally that question does not arise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is right. The question does not arise. We are considering the amendments, not whether the right hon. Gentleman supports the Bill. We are discussing the amendments.

Mr. Forth: The amendments from the other place relate to clause 10, which deals with some key elements of the elaborate regime that the Bill seeks to erect in order to deliver a level of comfort, safety and assurance.

Mr. Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something of a misapprehension that the amendments are all of a piece? It may be perfectly possible to agree that the Secretary of State should make provision for the setting of a fee for the grant of a licence, but to disagree with the idea that the Secretary of State should set a fee for attendance at a course.

Mr. Forth: That is an important point. My hon. Friend may wish to receive the guidance of the Chair on whether we can seek separate Divisions on the different elements for precisely the reason that he suggests. It is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State may wish to be involved in the first level of fees—those involved in the granting or variation of licences—but may not judge that it is necessary to be involved in setting a level of fees for the delivery of training by licensed persons or bodies. That is a matter on which we might require clarification from the Chair at some stage.

Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend is courteous in giving away again. There is a certain amount of Treasury

guidance on the setting of a fee for the grant of a licence. Unless otherwise provided for, the fee should be that required to compensate for the costs involved. In a sense, one can see the limited effect of that. That brings me back to my earlier point. If there are also fees relating to the charge for attendance, one finds a complication between two amendments in the group which could be deleterious to the provision of training.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. He gives me an opportunity to raise another point that is important in any regime such as this. All along, some of my hon. Friends have referred to a fee. I am not sure that we necessarily are looking at a standard, uniform fee. It always worries me when we talk about any regime of this kind to be considered and then imposed by a Secretary of State. Should there be a uniform regime for the entire country? As my hon. Friends will appreciate and some Labour Members may appreciate on a good day, the costs incurred in delivering the regime envisaged in clause 10 are likely to vary enormously in different parts of the country.
Looking around the Chamber at my hon. Friends who are here for the debate this morning, I can well imagine that the costs of putting together and delivering a training course would vary between, for example, Penrith and the Border and Westmorland, where they might be relatively low, and my constituency or Mid-Kent, where the inherent costs of delivery are likely to be higher.
Are we talking—again, this is a question for the Minister—about a relatively straightforward, simple licensing regime and level of fees, or must we contemplate, in order for it to be effective and reasonably to reflect costs, a complex regime that acknowledges the variations, diversity and sensitivity of these matters across the country?

Mr. David Maclean: My right hon. Friend is making a valid point about geographical variation, but the amendments relate to fees for training courses. Elsewhere, the Bill states that the Secretary of State shall have power by regulation to set up training courses for those who are supplying, exposing for supply, purchasing, possessing or simply using fireworks. That is a wide category of different businesses and even private individuals or councils. My right hon. Friend should consider whether there would have to be different lengths and depths of courses, and different fees for them.

Mr. Forth: Yes; my right hon. Friend is correct. I am grateful to him. That immediately raises another point. My right hon. and hon. Friends are reading my mind accurately and anticipating my points, some of which probably deserve elaboration. However, I do not want to hog the debate.
Another question for the Minister on which we shall need reassurance is the estimate that has been made of the number of additional personnel required in the Department or elsewhere to administer and monitor matters, and make constant judgments about, for example, the variation of a licence.
We are not talking about a one-off process. The clause and the amendment both refer to the granting or variation of licences, which implies a process about which we


should know more. What would variation of a licence involve? I am sure that I can dream up circumstances in which that might be necessary. It is germane to our debate on the effectiveness of the regime that we are being asked to approve within the terms of the clause and the amendment to ask whether the Minister envisages a relatively straightforward process whereby a licence, once granted, would be valid for a fixed period, be that one, three or five years, or whether the variation element would require additional bureaucracy and personnel to monitor closely the performance of each person giving the training, and an additional process whereby variation could be carried out.

Mr. Collins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as part of the regime, officials would have to be set aside to deal with correspondence and representations on the nature of the licences and the fees? For example, I recently attended a firework display organised by a Christian retirement home in my constituency, which resulted in so much noise that many local residents said, "It's those blooming Christians causing trouble again." Such events might produce correspondence, and officials would be needed to deal with it under the proposed regime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking about the powers of the Secretary of State, not what officials do, or what the cost of officials replying to correspondence would be. That intervention goes far too wide of the amendments before the House.

Mr. Forth: It is, indeed, the powers of the Secretary of State that are germane to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker; however, my hon. Friends and I are suggesting that there are many questions that require an answer if we are to make an assessment of the acceptability of the clause—which is, after all, what we are doing here this morning.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend raised some of those points on 29 January, during the debate on the money resolution. His fears were dismissed by the Minister, who said that safety was paramount. Of course safety is paramount, but how does the Minister setting the fees promote safety? That is what I cannot understand. Why cannot the industry set the fees? The Minister could then regulate whether the safety courses had been carried out and whether too high fees had been imposed. Why should the Minister be involved in the highly complex procedure of setting different levels of fees for different types of course in different parts of the country? Is not the point that I have made a strong one?

Mr. Forth: Yes, it is indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that we attempted to raise these questions in the debate on the money resolution earlier this year. My recollection is that, at that stage, we failed to get any substantive answers from the Minister, which might explain our anxiety today. We are now all rather nervous that the Minister may be unprepared or unable to give the detailed answers to our questions that would give us the sort of assurance that we need to decide how to vote on the matter before us.
I need not tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to remind the House that the whole essence of the parliamentary process is that Members of Parliament come here to question the Executive and to be satisfied about the nature of the business before them. I suspect that, when the Minister catches your eye, he will tell the House whether he believes that the amendments would strengthen the Bill, but in doing so, he will have to give answers to the questions that have been legitimately raised.
So far, questions have been asked only by Conservative Members; Labour Members have been silent, so perhaps they are unprepared for or lacking any interest in the debate. We have become accustomed to that attitude, but it is regrettable that we hear nothing from Labour Members. I assume that they are bored or uninterested, or that they simply accept without question everything that is shoved at them. We are here to participate far more fully in the parliamentary process, and that is what we are trying to do this morning.

Mr. Paterson: The clause makes it a prerequisite for a user of fireworks to have undergone a training course. Having been a member of the Government, does my right hon. Friend think that it is a serious practical possibility that, on 5 November, the night of the year when the overwhelming majority of fireworks are let off, the Minister can send staff to every bonfire party to make sure that every person using fireworks has undergone a training course that conforms to the clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter certainly does not relate to the amendments.

Mr. Forth: The Minister may wish to help us on that point later, although my optimism about that possibility is fading rapidly. The extent to which the Minister makes an effort to answer our questions will sway many of my hon. Friends in deciding how to vote.
However, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raises another important issue, which is the judgment about the nature of the training that would be given. Who would judge whether the training course was inherently satisfactory and whether the training course had been completed satisfactorily? That is another vital point that must be considered.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gives way, let me remind the House not to get into the detail of the quality of the training. The amendment talks about charging fees for training, not the quality of the training. The quality could be terrible, but we must debate the fees charged for it.

Mr. Forth: I had in mind the beginning of clause 10, which is being amended, which refers to
the satisfactory completion of a course, or courses, of training".
I was raising the issue in the context of the fees being charged.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What we have before us is not clause 10, but Lords amendments—the changes


made by the Lords. The amendment is extremely narrow and talks about the Secretary of State charging fees for courses, nothing else. As long as we stick to the subject of fees, we shall be all right.

Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments do indeed refer to
the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licences,
which is one of the processes that we are debating; however, they then talk about
the charging of fees for attendance at courses of training in the use of fireworks,
which raises other serious and relevant questions about whether simple attendance is all that is necessary, or whether achieving a level of competence based on that attendance is required.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us be clear: the level of competence has nothing to do with the amendment before us; only the charges are relevant. The amendment gives a power to the Secretary of State to charge fees, albeit for attendance. We need not worry about other parts of the Bill or the level of competence achieved. We are addressing a very narrow matter.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, am grateful for your guidance, but does it follow that amendment No. 3, which covers all the matters in subsection (5), means that we may not raise any of the matters in subsection (5)?

Mr. Forth: On the one hand, we are talking about fees for the grant or variation of licences, but, on the other, we are talking about charging—

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the changeover between yourself and Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not get an answer to my point of order.

Madam Speaker: I am so sorry—I thought that it was an intervention, not a point of order. I understand that the

Lords amendment does not cover the matter that the hon. Gentleman was raising in any event, so perhaps we should continue.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Maclean: I think that I can help my right hon. Friend, without straying outside the provisions of the Bill. Of course, the amendment relates solely to the fees that can be charged for training courses, but clause 5 refers to people having
proficiency or experience in the use of fireworks".
Therefore, it is envisaged that there will be certain training courses that will lead to qualifications or other proof of proficiency and there will have to be fees charged for those courses as well.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assistance on that matter, but I am mindful of the stricture that Mr. Deputy Speaker placed on me a moment ago, when he said that such matters were not immediately relevant to the clause or the amendments. As ever, I am mindful of his guidance, and will adhere to it strictly.
The point that I was about to make relates to the charging of fees for attendance at courses. That creates another set of difficulties that we must consider carefully because it implies that it is simply the attendance that matters in relation to the clause. That leads to further questions about the effectiveness of the training courses for which the fees are being charged. If only attendance is significant, one can envisage people going through the motions of attending courses.

It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Orders of the Day — Defence Review (Press Briefings)

11 am

Mr. John Maples: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who, in his Department or elsewhere in the Government, briefed the press yesterday on the contents of the strategic defence review and the outcome of the Cabinet discussion on the same subject.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): As Members of the House will know, the strategic defence review has been conducted in an unparalleled open and consultative fashion. [Laughter.] I shall enumerate some of the briefings that have been given, including to those hon. Members who are laughing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has held three open seminars and made two major speeches on the subject. The second, on 12 March this year, set out the key emerging themes of the strategic defence review, many of which were reflected in this morning's press and other press reports. He set out themes including the importance of our forces operating together jointly to provide maximum operational punch and the tough decisions that remained, such as whether to replace our existing carriers with larger, more flexible and more usable ships.
In addition, we have received hundreds of contributions. We have talked and listened to our own people throughout defence on this matter. A BBC documentary has been transmitted, showing the processes by which the conclusions were reached on the strategic defence review and many of the issues involved.
The emerging conclusions have not only been discussed internally, but briefed to Members of the House, including the Defence Select Committee and the then shadow Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues. Only this week, those conclusions were briefed to the then shadow Secretary of State, and we gave a briefing on general military matters to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who has asked the question today.
Any briefings that broke the conventions of the House, or such briefings as are being suggested by the hon. Gentleman, are deprecated by me, the Prime Minister, the Government and No. 10. However, it will be obvious that particular interest on this topic was engendered yesterday, first, by an item in The Times, which was in parts inaccurate, and, secondly, by an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there would be a statement next Wednesday.
I confess to the House that I have discovered that one formal briefing, 11 pages long, on the strategic defence review was issued yesterday—by the Conservative central office political operations department. You may be interested, Madam Speaker, to know that, even before the conclusions in the review were announced, the Conservatives said in the briefing:
the main thrust of our case is that it has just been a cover for 'cuts'.
I cannot answer for Conservative central office, the media, their sources or the stories that they write, but I can assure the House that there have been no formal

briefings of the media on the outcome of the strategic defence review by Defence Ministers or officials. The House should hear, and I am sure will welcome, the conclusions of the strategic defence review on Wednesday, as announced by the Leader of the House yesterday.
On such an important and far-reaching subject, it is not surprising that there has been much speculation in the press. This is the most radical, deep, wide and open consultation and analysis carried out in the Ministry of Defence for decades. Given the nature and openness of the review, it would not be surprising if such speculation were, on occasion, well informed. That is surely a consequence of open government that we should all welcome, but the first people to know the true facts and the full outcome of the review will, as ever, be Members of the House.

Mr. Maples: It is a measure of the Government's contempt for the House that even when they are caught red-handed, as they have been twice today, they obfuscate. [Hon. Members: "It is you."] I do not know what is in the defence review. It is absolutely ridiculous for Labour Members to level a similar charge at us and try to obfuscate the issue.
I am not referring to the open consultation that the Secretary of State conducted before the conclusions were reached; I am referring to specific briefing of the press, yesterday and the day before, after conclusions had been reached. Who told Mr. John Deans of the Daily Mail and Mr. George Jones of The Daily Telegraph the specific conclusions? The Minister says that no formal briefing took place. It is very difficult for me or any other hon. Member to believe that. Those journalists were briefed. That may not have been done by the Minister or the Secretary of State. I suspect that it was done by his special adviser, who is apparently giving a series of lunches at our expense to brief journalists on these issues. Will the Minister deal with that specific point when he replies?
Someone briefed those journalists. It is not general speculation, and nobody who reads the articles could possibly think that. Those articles follow an article about the review in The Times yesterday, which must also have been the result of briefing.

Dr. Reid: It is inaccurate.

Mr. Maples: The Minister says that it is inaccurate. I suppose that is—it was probably based on briefing by the Treasury. The Government's spin doctors are briefing against each other at such an incredible rate that one does not know of whom to ask private notice questions such as this.
Will the Minister confirm or deny the activities of the Secretary of State's special adviser in giving a series of lunches to brief journalists on the review? [Interruption.] You see, Government Members so hate any criticism of their conduct that one cannot even get a hearing in the House.
The leaking is highly selective, and designed to get the good news in the public domain so that the mood has been set before the bad news comes out on Wednesday, and there will be plenty of bad news for the Territorial


Army, the Paras, the Navy and the Air Force. Of course, there will also be the cut in the defence budget that we expect. Of course, those facts are not being leaked.
Madam Speaker, you have in the past, and earlier today, made it clear how you deplore the practice of briefing the press before Parliament is told of major policy announcements. I cannot think of a more important policy announcement that the Government will make than the publication of the strategic defence review, but here we have unequivocal evidence of that practice continuing.
The Secretary of State for Defence personally assured me on Wednesday that he would not use that practice—particularly, as he said, because there were security considerations. He said also—and I ask the Minister of State to confirm this—that, when the press were briefed on the day of the statement, it would be done in secure conditions, they would not be allowed to have their mobile phones with them, and they would not be allowed to leave the Ministry until after he, the Secretary of State, had sat down in the House.
Will the Minister of State today give the House an unequivocal undertaking that the leaks and briefings will stop, and that he will do his duty to Parliament by delaying any further press briefing until after the statement on Wednesday? I ask him further to undertake to make a copy of his statement and the White Paper available to the Opposition on the morning of the day the statement is to be made, and not, as usual, only 20 minutes in advance. As we shall apparently be the last people to find out the contents of the statement, that does not seem an unreasonable request.
That practice is further evidence of the Government's contempt for the House, which we see every day and have seen twice this morning. The Minister has been caught red-handed. He should now promise to desist, and not do it again.

Dr. Reid: What a load of hogwash. I have already made it plain that there was no briefing on the conclusions of the strategic defence review. We would deprecate such briefing. I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps he could not pick it up through his synthetic fury—that the review has been carried out in the most open and consultative fashion. It has included lunches. His predecessor was at one of those lunches, as were Lord Younger and the former Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo. We have engaged in the widest form of consultation.
With regard to yesterday's speculation, it takes the biscuit when the hon. Gentleman and his friends at Conservative central office whip up interest by issuing an 11-page media briefing pack on the strategic defence review, and are then surprised when the newspapers cover the review. The only comments that I would make about the hon. Gentleman's strategic defence review media pack is that it got even more things wrong than most of the press combined.
When the facts and conclusions are stated, they will be stated to the House first. The statement will be the conclusion of the deepest, widest and most open consultation process that has ever been carried out in the Ministry of Defence. Complaints about that from a party

that, during 18 years in government, never consulted anybody on anything before reaching conclusions, is the height of hypocrisy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not believe that any members of the Socialist Campaign Group went to lunch, so the consultation process sounds a bit one-sided.
As a result of seeing on the notice board that there was to be a PNQ on the strategic defence review today, I took it upon myself to go to the Library and read all the relevant newspapers to see to what extent that great briefing exercise had produced similar results in each newspaper. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) referred to The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. I looked at The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and the Daily Mail. One said that a cut of £500 million would be announced next week; another said that £1 billion would be cut from defence expenditure—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Not enough for you."] No, not quite enough. Another newspaper—I think it was The Independent—said that the cut would be more than £500 million.
If that great briefing really took place, everybody would have been told the same figure. It sounds very odd. I do not believe that journalists are altogether dim. How could they have drawn such conclusions out of a briefing? Hon. Members should go and read those reports in the Library, because the evidence is there for people to see. The reason we are having this PNQ today is because the Tory Opposition are not capable of dealing with the job that they have to do in Parliament and are inventing stories to try and give the impression that people are briefing, whereas in reality all the stories tell a different tale.

Dr. Reid: As usual, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I assume that, if someone was briefing journalists, he or she would try to tell the same story to various newspapers. As my hon. Friend says, there are different stories in different newspapers. Some have extremely inaccurate reports, although none are as inaccurate as the briefings being put out by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Once again, he has excelled himself.
The Opposition's motives for raising the matter are simple: they know that, after the most open consultation and the deepest analysis, we have produced a package, the conclusions of which will be announced next week, which will be good news for the House, the nation and the armed forces. It will enhance our capabilities and ensure that we have modern forces for a modern world. Having had nothing whatever to contribute to that for the past 10 months, Conservative Members are deeply embarrassed. Whereas they have shown that defence cannot be trusted in their hands, the Labour Government have shown that the country can place its trust in them on defence matters.
Lest I contribute to any inaccuracy, I said that Mr. Portillo had attended a luncheon meeting. I should have said that he was invited but did not attend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—unlike the former Conservative Secretary of State, John Nott, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Younger, and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), all of whom did attend.
The huffing and puffing by Opposition Members has nothing to do with the open consultation process; it is due to the fact that they have been thoroughly inadequate on the topic of defence, and are attempting to score cheap political points.

Mr. Clive Efford: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I can take points of order only after statements.

Mr. David Heath: The Minister will be aware that Liberal Democrats believe that the strategic defence review should be based on the long-term military requirements of the United Kingdom—on foreign policy rather than narrow Treasury issues. Like other hon. Members, we have been concerned about the Treasury's predatory instincts in formulating the strategic defence review. If the reports in today's press are correct, the Treasury has largely been thwarted. Liberal Democrats would welcome that.
Has not the whole process of the review been characterised by leaks in every quarter to the press and other media? Every member of the press who can hold a knife and fork seems to know more about the process than Members of the House and Select Committee members. Ministers must have known that that has been happening, yet they chose to take no action, presumably because they sought departmental advantage in pretending not to see it happen.
Is not the Government's conduct in all Departments predicated on a wish to make announcements to the press and other media before they are made to the House? Was not that demonstrated clearly even this week, with the announcement of a new policy on arms sales, which was not available to hon. Members until 4 o'clock yet was on the morning news on the radio? Is it not time that Ministers remembered that their first responsibility in terms of information is to the House and nowhere else?

Dr. Reid: Of course, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing will give me greater pleasure than seeing the Secretary of State announce to the House the conclusions of the strategic defence review and watching the mournful faces on the Opposition Benches.
I repeat that no conclusions have been briefed to the press by my Department. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is supposed to be a member of a party that calls for open and consultative forms of government. We have done that with this defence review to an extent that has rarely, if ever, been done in the Ministry of Defence before. We have consulted and communicated with hundreds, indeed thousands—with hundreds of thousands—of people throughout the armed forces, and journalists, institutes and politicians of every political hue and favour, and with the official Opposition and the minority Opposition parties. They have all been briefed on this matter.
Is it the consensus of the hon. Member's party that we so conduct ourselves in future that we do not do so—that we exclude them from consideration, that, in order to

maintain national security, we say nothing to anyone? I should be very surprised if he was supported in that view by anyone else in his party.

Mr. Caplin: We have now spent 19 minutes of a Private Members' day dealing with this private notice question. There appear to be important issues on the Order Paper today, Madam Speaker, as you said; indeed, the Liberal Democrats tried to have today extended, to allow more time, and I see them taking up time on this matter. I feel that there is a filibuster—an abuse of Parliament by those on the Conservative Front Bench and Back Benches. My question to the Minister is: will he publish, for all of us who are interested, the Conservative central office leak?

Dr. Reid: I have always regarded my job as being to spread enlightenment and education, and I do not think that that would be in any way enhanced by publishing that document.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am aware of the business that is before the House, so, if I do call all Members who are standing—I do not commit myself to doing so—questions must be direct.

Mr. Michael Colvin: It is pretty rich to accuse Conservative central office of this leak. I acknowledge the work that the Ministry of Defence has done in public relations. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has referred to the widest consultation process ever. I simply raise the question whether that consultation was real consultation or just a public relations exercise to soften up the armed forces for what was going to be a bitter pill. The Ministry of Defence has certainly briefed the Defence Select Committee very assiduously.
I would ask a very important question. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, there is remarkable consistency in the figures quoted in the press reports. It all depends whether one is viewing the cuts over one year, two years or three years, or over the rest of the Parliament. The Minister knows as well as most of the rest of us do, as a result of the press leaks, that the proposed cuts of £2,000 million will be spread over a period of four years—perhaps, to begin with, just £500 million, or—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must keep hon. Members to the question before us. The question before us is not the defence review itself and what is in it; it is the briefing of the press, not the details of it. I ask Members to put their questions directly; otherwise, I must move on. May I now have a question to the Minister?

Mr. Colvin: My question is simply this. In view of the consistency of the press reports, will the Minister for the Armed Forces get the Secretary of State to authorise a full inquiry into these leaks before he comes to the House to make a statement next Wednesday?

Dr. Reid: The premise on which the question is based is false. There is no consistency in the press reports, any


more than there has been for the past 10 months. I therefore do not intend even to consider asking the Secretary of State to institute any inquiry.

Miss Anne McIntosh: A very serious charge has been made against the Government—that they have leaked, either from the Ministry of Defence or from the Treasury, precise figures of cuts to the Territorial Army and details of the precise equipment that will be ordered. The only query is about the length of the period over which the review will take place. Clearly the information has not come from Conservative central office—it has many claims to fame, but that is not one of them. Where have those precise figures come from, if they have not come from a leak from the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury?

Dr. Reid: The precise figures for the cuts in the Territorial Army in this morning's press came from an article six weeks ago in The Times by Mike Evans—which was again based on speculation—not from any brief that we gave.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that no Minister or special adviser told The Times this week:
Mr. Brown was not satisfied and demanded a cut of £2 billion in the defence budget
and told the Daily Telegraph:
it will not deliver the savings of £2 billion"?
Will the Minister confirm that no Minister or official told the papers that this week—indeed, that, if there was any briefing, it was apparently by Conservative central office?

Dr. Reid: I do not know the exact quotes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I do not know the exact quotes, but I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor did not demand any arbitrary cut of any nature whatever. [Interruption.] If that is the gist of the quotes, it is accurate, and it is something that was not revealed there but has been said for 10 months by Ministers from the Dispatch Box.
This was a foreign-policy-led review, which has given us a configuration of modern forces for the modern world. It has done so within budget. It has enhanced our capability. It has back-filled the hollowed-out areas left by the previous Government. It is a good story, and that is what is getting up Conservative Members' noses.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw the Minister's attention to a small paragraph in today's Daily Telegraph? It reads:
Ministers conceded yesterday that the Ministry of Defence would be offering significant savings from its £21 billion-a-year budget.
I draw his attention in particular to the words, "Ministers conceded". Does he agree that Mr. George Jones is a senior Lobby correspondent of high reputation? Does he think that he would write "Ministers conceded" unless he had had a briefing from Ministers or officials?
Will the Minister place in the House of Commons Library a schedule of contacts that he and his officials and Treasury officials have had with the Telegraph over the

past few days, so that we may make up our minds ourselves whether there have been conversations between Ministers and officials on that subject?

Dr. Reid: Point one: I have the greatest respect for Mr. George Jones, a serious journalist. Point two: Ministers have never conceded that there were significant cuts made to the defence budget in here, outside here, in public or in private. Point three: significant cuts were never demanded to the defence budget. Point four: the request for a list of every person that we have met in the course of the last year, is a silly point—[Interruption.]—or of every person that we have met in the last few days—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In the last two days.

Dr. Reid: Or in the last two days. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is being stupid, and Conservative Front-Bench Members have been even more stupid in supporting him.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister understand that there is a world of difference between consultation in advance of the taking of decisions by Cabinet Committees and the briefing of decisions reached by Cabinet Committees? It is precisely on that latter point that it is an abuse of the procedures of the House for briefing to take place before the House is told. That is precisely what the stories suggest. Will the Minister accept that?
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the Minister said that there had been no formal briefings by Defence Ministers or officials. Will he further confirm that there were no informal briefings by Ministers of any kind or officials of any Government Department?

Dr. Reid: That is the first sensible question that has been asked. Yes, there is a distinct difference between informing on the background, on the processes, and on the development of the thinking of the defence review, which has been going on for 10 months—and that has been done, and those who have been briefed have included not only journalists but officials—[Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Gentleman's second point. Indeed, a whole documentary was made on that very subject.
That is different from a briefing on the conclusions of the review, and the conclusions of the review have not been briefed by my Department. As far as anyone else is concerned, in terms of the speculation on what they have been saying, I do not know, but I do know that the Government, from the Prime Minister down, deprecate briefing, on or off the record, of any material which most appropriately should come before the House first.

Mr. David Maclean: The Minister has been very careful in his choice of words this morning. We all appreciate that there is a difference between wide-ranging consultation before the conclusions are reached, and the conclusions. The Minister is careful to say, that there has been no briefing "by my Department". It is not good enough for the Minister to use that as a defence to the systematic leaking, which we have seen in the press, from the Government.
Will the Minister give us an assurance that he speaks for the whole Government, not just for himself, at the Dispatch Box? Will he give us an assurance that Ministers from any other Department, or No. 10 Downing street, or special advisers from any other Department, have not been systematically leaking part of the defence review?

Dr. Reid: I have already made it plain that the position I adopt, in deprecating any such briefings and being opposed to them, is fully shared by the Prime Minister and No. 10 Downing street. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me whether anyone, in any Government Department, out of several hundred civil servants, has ever said anything to a journalist, I am not prepared to make such a wild statement, and nor could any human being. However, there have been no briefings, formal or informal, by officials or Ministers on the conclusions of the strategic defence review; I keep repeating it. If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that, I am afraid that I cannot help him.

Mr. Tim Collins: As the Minister says that he cannot rule out the possibility that such briefings took place, will he institute an inquiry? Is the Minister saying—may I have a yes or no answer—that, when George Jones reported this morning that he talked to Ministers yesterday, George Jones made that up?

Dr. Reid: I did not say that I could not say that there had been no formal briefings by anyone about this matter. I denied that there were any briefings on it, formal or informal. I could not say—because it is ludicrous to ask me to do so—whether any civil servant in any Department, among hundreds of thousands, had spoken at any stage over 10 months to anyone who happens to be a member of the press or who knows someone in the press. That sort of question shows how desperate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is, and how far he will go in an attempt to prove a conspiracy that does not exist.
So far as the hon. Gentleman's question is concerned, I repeat again: there has been no briefing on the conclusions of the defence review. The Opposition are annoyed, not because they think that there has been some briefing, but because they think that gradually emerging in press speculation—after 10 months of such speculation—is a good story on defence.
I cannot account for the infallibility of George Jones or anyone else. As far as I am aware, no politician or any reporter—however esteemed, and however much respect I have for him—is infallible. When the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that it is ludicrous to ask anyone in the House to account for the veracity or otherwise of, or the motives behind, any report that is issued. I merely point out that what George Jones said in The Daily Telegraph is different from what Mr. Mike Evans, another highly reputable journalist, said in The Times, which is different again from what Mr. John Deans, another reputable journalist, said in the Daily Mail. There is no common thread, because there has been no briefing.

Mr. Owen Paterson: In that case, if Mr. George Jones's article is proved to be accurate in detail, will the Minister come to the House next Wednesday and apologise, and launch a full inquiry into where Mr. Jones got the words "Ministers conceded yesterday"?

Dr. Reid: I will go further than that. I will relate to the hon. Gentleman the whole of my conversation with the said Mr. George Jones yesterday.

Mr. Simon Burns: You spoke to him.

Dr. Reid: Yes—I never denied that I spoke to him. I shall give a verbatim transcript of our total conversation, which was held not 15 yards from here, in the Lobby. Mr. Jones said, and I quote, "They got it wrong in The Times this morning, didn't they?", and I said, "Yes." He said, "I'm going to stick to my figures," and I said, "And I'm going for a coffee."

Orders of the Day — Fireworks Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Clause 10

TRAINING COURSES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6, line 6, after ("State,") insert—

("() authorise the making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for the grant or variation of licences,")

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mrs. Gilroy.]

Mr. Forth: I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we were considering clause 10 of the Fireworks Bill and the amendments from another place relating to that clause.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I remind the House that we are talking about a cascade of possibilities that raises several questions that the Minister must answer. Clause 10 starts the cascade by saying:
If fireworks regulations specify conditions…they may make provision for courses.
The clause then goes on to outline three possible routes by which the training courses may be provided: directly by the Secretary of State; by a body or bodies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a clause there. There are other clauses also, and perhaps he will have an opportunity to discuss them later. However, we are discussing the amendments, and the right hon. Gentleman must stick to them.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, as ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The amendments relate to the setting of fees and the Secretary of State's role in that process. I think that we can take it for granted that, were the courses provided directly by the Secretary of State or by a body established by her, the Secretary of State would have direct control over any fees charged. That goes without saying. However, it raises some important questions even at that level about the internal mechanism that would be provided within the Department of Trade and Industry to allow the Secretary of State to establish what the level of fees should be.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, that question becomes even more important when we consider the determination of a dual level fee structure for those providing training in the private sector. The Minister must give us a much clearer idea about the probable direction that he and the Secretary of State will take: direct provision by the Department, recognition and establishment of other bodies, or reliance on the private sector.
Depending on which route is chosen, we will need to know much more about the attitude that will be taken towards fees. For example, will fees be set low in order to encourage training, or will they be set at a higher level in order to provide a level of profitability to the private licensed bodies? There is a series of important questions

relating to the mechanism—we must know more about that also—that the Minister envisages being established within the Department to deal with the substantial level of bureaucracy that will be needed.
Can the Minister provide a precedent? Some of my hon. Friends have from time to time suggested that there may be a precedent in this area. If so, it may help the House—it will certainly help me—to be told about the approach that the Department might take to setting the fee levels.
On the face of it, that is a daunting task. The Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department must take a view about the number of people that they envisage will have to be trained, which will affect the number of operators and trainers required, and the approach to the setting of fees. Those matters are intimately interrelated and linked. Therefore, the more we know about what the Minister has in mind, the more clear we can be in our response to the amendments from another place. In that way, we shall make an informed judgment, and cast our votes appropriately when the time comes.
We are posing a challenge, but also providing an important opportunity to the Minister. The Bill has been little debated, although the Minister appears to attach much importance to it. I tried earlier in the year—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will not worry about how often the Bill has been debated. We are concerned only about the amendments before us.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are worried about whether we shall receive a proper answer from the Minister. However, you have already told us that you will police the matter: your eagle eye will be upon the Minister and, if he does not reply, he will incur your displeasure. You helped us out in that regard, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to bring the Chair into the argument. Any hon. Member who speaks to the amendments will confine his or her remarks to those amendments—and that includes the Minister. That is what I shall do. I am not worried about the content of the speeches, so long as hon. Members keep to the amendments.

Mr. Forth: We shall worry about the content, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister fails to answer our questions, neither you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he, nor anyone else will be surprised at the action we shall take.
I have tried to play a modest part in setting out this morning my worries and anxieties about the amendments, clause 10 and the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to provide more answers than he has managed so far, so that my colleagues and I can make an informed judgment about these matters.

Mr. Rowe: We would all be delighted if we could have prevented the deaths of four people in the past four years. However, the Bill and the amendments are deeply troubling. The entire process is in the hands of the Secretary of State; no provisions are laid down. Clause 10(1), to which the amendments apply, begins with the


word "If", and clause 10(2) also begins with the word "If". It states:
If fireworks regulations make provision for courses to be provided by licensed persons, they may…make provision
for certain things. Their Lordships have amended provisions that may never be brought in; there is nothing in the Bill to say that they will. The alternative, of course, is more alarming: because the Bill and its amendments are drafted in this way, there is nothing to stop the Bill being extended further and further.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. I have already explained to hon. Members that what we have to consider is the charging of fees. That is all that is before us—not this clause or any other clause, just the Lords amendments. He must speak to those Lords amendments.

Mr. Rowe: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the amendments are governed by the word "if" and, if we are going to authorise the making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for the grant and variation of licences, we are entitled to repeat to the Minister that we want to know what he has in mind. Does he have it in mind that individuals will receive a licence, which will allow them to perform their function as a letter off of fireworks as often as they wish during a year, or will they have to seek a specific licence every time they wish to perform that function? Clearly, that will have a considerable bearing on the value of the fee charged because, if it is clearly for a year, that fee will be greater. The licence might even be for life; once someone has taken the course and shown that he is able to perform safely, perhaps there will be a life licence fee.

Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, subject to what Ministers say, there would be every reason for such a licence to be provided without time, as it were, because, if the licence is granted with reference to whether a person has the appropriate experience and qualifications, they are not likely to lose that experience and qualifications? Therefore, just one fee should be levied on one occasion.

Mr. Rowe: The precedent for that would be the driving licence. That would be perfectly reasonable, so I would be interested to hear the Minister say what he has in mind—if, of course, the regulations are ever made.
Amendment No. 3 authorises
making by the Secretary of State of provision about the charging of fees for attendance at courses of training in the use of fireworks".
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has already asked, will attendance by itself be enough, or will people have to have some sort of qualification at the end? If they are to be granted a qualification at the end, will it be eligible to be a national vocational qualification? If so, two things follow.
The fees for attendance at courses will vary sharply. For example, many training and enterprise councils—which are responsible for running NVQ courses—are keen to encourage people to undertake such courses because they represent a way back into employment, perhaps as part of the new deal. Are we seriously

suggesting that all those people will have to pay a fee? I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is intended that some people should be eligible for exemption from the fees, even if they attend a course. There is, of course, the other element: people who are already qualified who do not have to attend a course at all will presumably not be charged a fee.
Then we have the business about
the making by the Secretary of State, or by any body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State under this section
of
provision about any of the matters mentioned in subsection (5).
I believe that you have already ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that does not allow me to talk about subsection (5), even though one of the amendments deletes subsection (5)(c), but what I think is important is the body or bodies established or recognised. That involves a considerable difference.
If the body is to be established by the Secretary of State, the charges will be much higher because it will have to be set up from scratch and enormous expenses will attach to it. If, however, it is a body recognised by the Secretary of State, all sorts of questions are raised. Will it be a training and enterprise council? Will it be, as has been suggested, a local authority? Will it be some body relating to the industry itself, in which case the Secretary of State would no doubt assume that the charges for setting it up and running it will fall on industry?
Industry might or might not care for that, but all these things will have a considerable impact on the level, nature and, indeed frequency, of the charges. Therefore, I am deeply uneasy about the amendments, which seem to confirm that their Lordships had too little care—as we have had in this House, I am ashamed to say—about the open-endedness of the Bill. This is a serious and difficult matter.
11.45 am
Let me revert for a moment to the grant and variation of licences. I am not clear what the variation of a licence would entail. Would it mean that an individual holding a licence would be entitled to perform his functions in some areas, but not in others? Would he be entitled to perform his function in events of a certain size? Those things matter. If the Secretary of State is to be empowered to vary people's licences, will that entail charging for a variation, or will people be able to apply for a variation of licence without an additional charge? Once they have bought their licence in the first place, will they be allowed to vary it without charge? Again, I do not believe that the Secretary of State or the Minister knows. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
The amendments merely compound my difficulty with the Bill.

Mr. Lansley: I have listened with considerable interest to the debate, and looked with care at this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been at pains—and not always within order—to ask whether hon. Members who are intervening support the Bill. For my part, I am happy to concur with the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne


(Mr. Waterson). I have no reason to oppose the Bill, but we are debating a group of amendments and I urge my hon. Friends and, indeed, Labour Members, to look with care at each of the amendments. I hope to explain why. I shall argue that, of the four amendments with which we are presented—Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4—we should agree with amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 but disagree to amendment No. 3. When the time comes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to seek your guidance about how we might pursue that route.
Let me explain why I take that view. We are dealing with the issue of fees, but in two respects: first, fees for the grant or variation of a licence—amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to that—and, secondly, fees for attendance at courses; there we come to amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are necessary. In that respect, I agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne agreed, with the view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is right that, under the structure of clause 10 as presented to another place, the charging of fees for the grant or variation of a licence could have been determined by a body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State, but not directly on the basis determined by the Secretary of State.
It is therefore right to reconstruct the clause by way of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 so that the provision in relation to fees for the granting or variation of a licence is not simply one of those matters to be determined after the granting of powers to bodies established by the Secretary of State. Where fees are concerned, there should be determination by the Secretary of State herself. I am happy with that. I shall not dwell on the considerable questions relating to the granting or variation of a licence, which have been touched on by my hon. Friends. I am simply concerned with whether the basis of determination of fees for the granting or variation of a licence will be the Secretary of State or some other body or bodies.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 bring us to rather a different point. On the face of it, it may seem that the two amendments are designed to do exactly the same thing in relation to the fees charged for attendance at courses—to reflect the argument that the provision for making fees should not be determined by bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State but should reflect the will of the Secretary of State herself. I understand that the Select Committee carried the thought through from the previous point about the will of the Secretary of State being translated into the determination of fees by a body or bodies established or recognised by her.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend have any idea whether the Minister expects the Secretary of State to pocket the fees for the issue of licences and, if he does, does he think that the same thing will happen with fees for courses? The two things are very different, since if the providers of courses are not entitled to keep the fees, they will not provide the courses.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I made the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) earlier. It would be helpful if the Minister told us that where the charging of fees for the grant or variation of a licence is involved, the Secretary of State would seek to recover only the costs incurred by the Department in providing the service of granting or varying a licence.
As regards fees charged for attendance at courses, it seems to me that it would not be for the Secretary of State to pocket any such fee unless she were herself to be the provider of such courses, which is contemplated under the clause. As I understand it, however, the Secretary of State has not told us to what extent she proposes to be a training provider in this context.
For my part—I shall not dwell on the point at length—it seems wholly undesirable that the Secretary of State should be the training provider. The thrust of policy under the previous Administration, which I hope will not be deviated from, was that training should be private sector-led and private sector-provided rather than being provided directly by Government Departments. My hon. Friend made a useful and interesting point and I hope that I have answered him to his satisfaction. However, he has taken me slightly from my train of thought and I should recover it.
I was referring to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which in this instance carried through the logic of the point made about the setting of fees by the Secretary of State: the Committee applied exactly the same argument to the setting of fees by the Secretary of State in relation to charging for attendance at courses. However, in that context, I do not think that the Committee was taking a view on the substance of the issue of whether the Secretary of State should set fees for the charging of attendance at courses. It was simply considering the procedural question whether, if such fees are to be set, they should be set by reference to the determination of the Secretary of State, or whether a body or bodies established by the Secretary of State and recognised for this purpose should be allowed to set fees wholly without regard to the determination that the Secretary of State would make in the same respect.
Here I must depart from the view that has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, even though my admiration for him knows no bounds. Although the Select Committee examined carefully the structure of the clause and—in a procedural sense relating to the structure of powers—made a sensible amendment, it is open to us, in examining amendments Nos. 3 and 4, to reach a different view on the substance of the issue, which is the question whether the Secretary of State should set a structure of fees for charging for attendance at courses.
That brings me back to my reasons for opposing amendment No. 3 while agreeing with No. 4: By doing so, we shall delete from subsection (5) the provision that the Secretary of State should make provision about matters relating to fees. That will delete that provision in substance from the policy of the Bill, as it were, and by disagreeing with the Lords in amendment No. 3 we shall not reintroduce the power for the Secretary of State to make provision for fees. I hope that it is clear to my hon. Friends why I propose that we should go down that path.
That brings me to the substance of the issue. I am sorry that I have had to explain the process of my thinking about these amendments in such an elaborate way. When amendments are grouped, it is not always easy to explain why one opposes one and accepts others.
I shall explain my view on the substance of the issue. The presumption—I say this from my experience with chambers of commerce, which were often training providers and participated fully in the establishment of


training and enterprise councils—that lay behind the reform of training provision was that such provision was best provided by the private sector, and in a way that operated in a competitive and market-oriented fashion. I shall not dwell on the theory of that. I know that it is fully understood on the Opposition Benches. It may not be well understand on the Government Benches, but I understood that, in terms of training policy at least, the Government were not seeking substantially to depart from that which has been established.
I find it odd that the structure of the Bill should look to intervene in a market-oriented system of training provision by setting a structure of fees, or providing for the Secretary of State the power to set a structure of fees. That seems an odd way of proceeding in the absence of any assessment, as far as I am aware, of the character of the marketplace in which the Secretary of State will be intervening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made an important point in that respect. The number of people seeking training and the number of people providing training is of the essence. If the numbers are small, there may be a debate about whether it is right to have a managed market in the short run. If the market is to operate effectively, it must be one in which a substantial number of providers compete among themselves. I understand that, in that marketplace, there is no reason, in time—if not at the outset—why the number of trainers will not be perfectly adequate for a training market to be established.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend have any idea whether the Secretary of State wants a substantial number of licensed people—in which case one would imagine that she would intervene to keep the price of training as low as possible—or whether this is a back-door attempt to remove fireworks altogether, in which case, presumably, she would intervene to keep the price at a level which would discourage people from taking training at all?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend slightly anticipates my next argument, although not unhelpfully. The Secretary of State might set the fee at a relatively low level, with the intention of seeking to encourage large numbers of persons to seek training to undertake activities with fireworks in a safe manner. By doing that, she might well inhibit the development of a market for training because the training providers might find that they did not have sufficient recompense for their training activity.
There lies the difficulty of any Government or public body trying to intervene to manage the market in favour of a particular outcome. They often do not deliver the benefits sought. My hon. Friend may be right. The Secretary of State may set the fees at a low level to attract unskilled users of fireworks and make them skilled users of fireworks. In the process, she may set the fees at a level that brings in few good training providers. Frankly, she may bring into the marketplace providers at a level of fees that does not encourage them to provide training of the quality that is required to meet the underlying objective.

12 noon

Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real source of knowledge on fireworks is those who manufacture fireworks? Does he think that we could have

an unhealthy collusion between those who manufacture fireworks and the Secretary of State in deciding fees and setting up training establishments?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and useful point. I suspect that he is right, and a significant part of the training that is to be provided—if it is to be provided in a market manner—will be provided at the instigation of manufacturers and in relation to their products.

Mrs. Gilroy: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could name some of the manufacturers he thinks may enter into collusion. My understanding is that there are very few manufacturers left in this country, and that it is mostly a matter of importation.

Mr. Lansley: Heavens, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly did not say that I thought that any manufacturer would collude or enter into collusive agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was talking about that. My point is, in a sense, quite the opposite.
I am perfectly sanguine about the possibility that manufacturers may provide training. I am perfectly happy that, in a training market, one of manufacturers' objectives is to try to promote the use of their product. I have no difficulty with that. I see no reason why the supporters of the Bill should have a difficulty with that, so long as the licensing process is designed to ensure quality and safety in the provision, supply and use of the product.
In a relatively robust marketplace with low barriers to entry, if manufacturers seek by collusion or by abuse of a dominant position—[Interruption.] The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and I have spent many happy hours debating the Competition Bill. He will know exactly what I mean by abuse of a dominant position. If manufacturers seek to do that in a relatively healthy marketplace with low barriers to entry, there will be no difficulty. The manufacturers will be circumvented by other training providers.

Mr. Paterson: It would help if I expanded my earlier comment to include importers. I was referring to those with a commercial interest in the sale of large numbers of fireworks in this country, who may wish to work closely with the Government to the exclusion of others.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right to remind me that I have not pursued that point. It seems to me inherently undesirable that there should be collusion either between manufacturers and importers, or between them and the Government, in setting a fees level designed to carry through some kind of distortion to the marketplace for training.
By introducing the Bill, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and the Minister have assumed that there will not be a free market, as the licensing provision represents a barrier to entry—it is a statutorily determined monopoly on training.

Mrs. Gilroy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the regulations, it is entirely possible—indeed, probable—


that a wide part of the fireworks market will not be subject to training and, therefore, fees? He is straying wide of the mark.

Mr. Lansley: I thought that I was entirely in order in talking about the fees to be charged for attendance at training courses. The hon. Lady should not chide me, as I am not talking about those parts of the industry that will not be subject to fees. Perhaps she is shifting her position. The burden of my argument is that the Secretary of State should not be in the business of setting a structure of fees for attendance at courses. If she is saying that that is almost the case already, she should disagree to amendment No. 3.

Mr. Maclean: I was worried by the intervention of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), which went to the heart of some of the problems in the Bill and the wide-ranging way in which it is written. On fees, she said that it is possible, even probable, that the regulations may not be relevant to large sections of the industry. We have to debate the Bill and the amendment on fees, but we have no idea what regulations the Government will make, whom the regulations will cover and by what judgment the fees will be levied. The Government are asking us to buy a pig in the poke.

Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and gives a more effective riposte to the intervention of the hon. Member for Sutton than I could. If she is minded to intervene again, perhaps she will say what scope she envisages for the licensing system for those who run training courses. The Bill seems to suggest that, for safety reasons, a large proportion of the training of those who use and handle fireworks should be covered by a licensing process. It would be helpful to have the parameters set out.
My argument, as I hope the Minister and the hon. Lady will recognise, is not about scope and how far the licensing process should go; it is about the principle—whether the Secretary of State should determine the structure of fees for training. The statutory barrier to entry set by the Secretary of State is not to limit the numbers entering the training market, but to determine quality. There is no reason why, if enough people are licensed to provide training at the appropriate standard, a fully competitive market for training in the private sector should not be established.
I see no grounds for the setting of fees, or even maximum fees. If we go down that path, there will be many distortions, deliberate or otherwise. One risk, as has been pointed out, is that, although the intention is to increase the number of people who receive training, the number of training providers could be reduced or the quality of the training could be lowered. If the fee is too low, the intended objective may be compromised, and training providers may not be able to offer high-quality courses to meet the standards that the Bill suggests.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has prompted an important line of thought. It seems, prima facie, that the providers of the best training will have an expensive capital outlay for the range that they want. If they attract a large number of people because of the quality of their training, training

costs could be driven down. If the Secretary of State has declared the fee that they are allowed to charge, there will not be that beneficial effect.

Mr. Lansley: That is a good point. Many distortions might result from a fee set at different levels.
My hon. Friend reminds me of another important matter. The fee will not necessarily remain at the initial level at which it is set by the Secretary of State. If she is the price setter, training providers contemplating coming into the market will have to build in a form of risk with which they are not used to dealing. I have worked with many training providers. They have to accept commercial risk within a marketplace, which is well understood.
If I were a provider, I would set out my stall, as it were. I would know roughly the number of people requiring training and the competition, and I would set the price according to what the market would bear. My question for the Minister is this: will the Secretary of State set the price at what the market will bear and how will she determine that when there is not yet a market? Of course she will not do so, because she does not know that price and will therefore set the fee in relation to costs.

Mrs. Gilroy: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I made a similar intervention on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but the significance of the training scheme under the Bill is that it may confer a statutory right to buy certain dangerous fireworks. Does he not think it right that a limit should be set on charges made for such a right?

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady questioned whether I had been here throughout the debate, and I can confirm that I have—I have left the Chamber only once, for a moment. Also, she was dealing with the wrong point. I have said that I support amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which relate to the charging of a fee for the granting of a licence or its variation. I do not dispute that point, and I do not understand why the hon. Lady should challenge me on it. Of course fees should be charged for attendance at courses People who want to be trained will go to training providers, who will charge a fee.
The question is whether the fee that is to be charged should be determined by the Secretary of State or the provider operating in the marketplace. The hon. Lady's intervention shows that she has not listened to the argument—indeed, she is not even aware of the structure of the argument. My question, which is the essence of the matter, is: will the Secretary of State set the price in a market that she is to control by judging what it will bear? Clearly, she will not do so.
It is in the nature of the beast that the Secretary of State cannot know what price the market will bear—the market has not established such a price. Therefore, she will either set the price too high so that training providers will receive a higher fee than they would if they were operating in a competitive marketplace without fees set by the Government, or she will set it too low. Short-run marginal costs are the normal basis on which Government Departments set such fees. If the fee is set on that basis, it will be below what the market will bear. Either way, there will be adverse consequences.

Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful market-based argument. Does he agree that a further


difficulty with allowing the Secretary of State to set the fees is that training providers will have to club together to hire a lobbyist to make representations to her on a matter that is clearly vital to their commercial survival?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. He illustrates the inherent inefficiency of trying to manage any market through Government intervention rather than market pressures alone.
If the Government set the fees, they will be either too high or too low. If they are too high, the training providers will take an excess profit—I thought that the Government did not like excess profits—and people may be deterred from seeking training. If they are too low, more people may seek training, but there will be fewer providers and they may cut corners.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Sutton has not said that she is happy for us to disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 3, because having the Secretary of State setting the fees would only introduce inefficiencies and pose a risk that there could be manipulation for extraneous reasons: to impose a deterrent, for example. The Bill will achieve its objectives only by operating through the marketplace. We should support amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4, but oppose amendment No. 3.

Mr. Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on doing so well in the ballot and bringing her Bill so near to fruition. At 12.16 pm, it must seem tantalisingly close.
The Bill is extraordinarily ambitious. It strikes me as being like a game of consequences. I whole-heartedly concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that, in considering the fees, we need to go right back to the explanatory and financial memorandum, which gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily wide powers.
The memorandum says:
The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the content of such regulations and cannot at this stage be predicted…the regulations may confer power on the Secretary of State to provide training courses.
Those are extraordinarily broad—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to go down this route. There have been other stages of the Bill at which these matters could be debated. We are now considering Lords amendments concerning the charging of fees for training, and the granting and variation of licences. The other powers have nothing to do with the amendments.

Mr. Paterson: I totally take on board your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely the fees are set according to the regulations, which are decided by—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a question of taking on board not my advice but my instructions. The hon. Gentleman has had other opportunities to debate these

matters. The other place has sent us these specific amendments, and we must confine ourselves to considering them.

Mr. Paterson: I will do my best to follow your instructions to the letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill requires a high level of training, in which there is no risk and no animal can be injured. That—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. If he will talk about fees, he will be all right—and I shall be happy.

Mr. Paterson: I will try.
I am concerned about the practical consequences of the Bill and the ability to set fees at a realistic level. I have tried in my preamble to demonstrate that the Bill is so extraordinarily ambitious that it will be beyond the powers of the Secretary of State to set satisfactory fees. As I understand it, no fireworks will be sold by anyone who has not been on a training course and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the Bill. I do not want him to talk about the Bill in general terms. I do not want him to talk about any clause. He should talk only about the amendments before us. That is the difficulty in which he finds himself, and if he is unable to speak to the amendments, perhaps he will allow another hon. Member to speak. He cannot decide to go somewhere else in the Bill just because he cannot speak to the amendments.

Mr. Paterson: I apologise once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My concern is that the Secretary of State must set fees, but I do not see how he can do that under the Bill's requirements. He has four options. He may set fees without consultation, or he may palm the setting of them on to the industry so that it can make its own arrangements, or he may go to local authorities, or he may set up a quango. Surely, even allowing for the broadness of the Bill, the Secretary of State will not be allowed to set fees without consulting anyone.
My fear, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), is that the Secretary of State will, by working closely with the industry, distort the market in fireworks and the training of those who use them. The only people qualified to conduct training, and the only people with the space for training grounds in open areas in which there is no danger of hurting livestock, will be importers or manufacturers already involved in the industry. They have a vested interest in shutting other people out of the market, and their interest lies in setting extremely high fees. They will work with the Secretary of State to distort a market that they alone will be able to provide. That will make it difficult for new importers to enter the market or for people to set up new businesses to manufacture fireworks.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sutton aims to stop fireworks, even though they are hugely popular on 5 November and at other celebrations. She shakes her


head at that suggestion, but I fear that that will be the consequence of working with the industry. Unhealthy collusion will set up a cartel to decide how fees are set.

Mr. Collins: The Lords amendments would be even more beneficial if the word "affordable" were inserted before "fees".

Mr. Paterson: I agree entirely. The point is that the industry will want the fees not to be affordable. There will be a lock-out, with the collusion of the Secretary of State. The Bill requires good training and requires the Secretary of State to set training fees. The interest of those already established in the market lies in shutting out anyone else. There will be a smaller number of huge public displays, with safer organisation. Perhaps that is what the hon. Member for Sutton wants. I, however, favour private activity, more choice and more independence, which is precisely what the Bill would stop. It will not be in the interests of those who are established in the industry to set the fees too low.
The Secretary of State should not be involved in setting fees. I am sure that enforcement will be deputed to local government, although local government is not mentioned in the Bill. Local government already has huge burdens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) so wisely said, there is huge variation in the characteristics of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I come from rural areas in which there is plenty of room. It would probably be cheaper to set up fireworks use training establishments in a rural area where there are country spaces in which fireworks can land without hurting anyone.

Mr. Collins: I would not want my hon. Friend to think that our debate on the amendments implies any degree of support for large-scale fireworks training courses across the Lake District national park.

Mr. Paterson: No. I am sure that my hon. Friend's sheep farmers concur and will be cheering as they listen to the radio or watch on television. It is easier to provide training—and fees would be cheaper—in the country. There will be demands for lower fees from local government. Bromley and Chislehurst is a heavily populated, built-up area which may have considerable problems. People may have to travel. They may have to go all the way to the national park at Lonsdale to find a nice wide open space to do the training, and the fees may be greater. The Secretary of State is being given powers to set fees right across the country, regardless of local circumstances. That is unworkable. If fees are to be set, there must be flexibility to work with those with the extraordinarily difficult job of enforcing the regulations.
There is no acknowledgment of how training is to be checked and enforced. In an intervention, I asked whether some security force will whiz around the country on 5 November checking that every fireworks party is being run by people who have paid the fees and been to a course with which the Secretary of State is content. That appears not to have been thought of at all. With respect to the Bill's promoter, that is not practical.

Mrs. Gilroy: Has the hon. Gentleman read the "Firework Injuries. Data Year 1997" survey? It has an illustration of a girl badly defaced with the caption:

Face by boyfriend showing off with a firework.
Boys behaving badly. What price would the hon. Gentleman put on such injuries?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that these matters are not before us at the moment.

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will take your line and not take up that point. I am as concerned as anyone about injuries. I do not see that the setting of fees by the Secretary of State will reduce the number of fireworks injuries. Believing that passing a huge, blunderbuss Bill and giving the Secretary of State power to set fees and insist on training will make this hideous problem go away shows extraordinary faith. Dreadful injuries occur to a small number of people. The number involved is small compared with accidents at home or on the road. I do not believe that the problem will be washed away by giving such powers to the Secretary of State and setting fees.
Much worse, I foresee a black market in the sale of fireworks and, if necessary, in training. Fly-by-night companies will operate outside the legal domain. In contrast to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) sought during the Conservative years, when he worked closely with industry and sought consent, the Bill will split the consensus. It all comes back to the fact that the Secretary of State is being given far too wide powers. The powers to set fees are unrealistic and unworkable. Sadly, that will not achieve the laudable aims sought by the hon. Member for Sutton.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I shall explain why the Government support the Lords amendments and the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). The heart of the issue is how we can introduce a regime to provide for training that can cut the number of injuries that occur every fireworks season.
Labour Members can speak with some satisfaction in the knowledge that the action that we have taken since the general election has led to a record decrease in the number of fireworks injuries—the largest fall for 23 years. That gives us a unique position to speak with some authority; in contrast to the position of some Conservative Members and the record of the Conservative party.
We support the Lords amendments to clause 10 because they give the powers needed to ensure that display and larger fireworks are used by properly trained people. In that desire, we have the support of everyone from those representing the industry to the Confederation of British Industry, which represents all industries, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and organisations which represent the safety interests of the public.
Two things have come out of the debate. None of the Conservative Members who have spoken today contributed to previous debates. Perhaps that is why they are so ill-informed. The speech made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) beggared belief. He stated that everyone who sells or uses fireworks will have to pay some sort of licence fee. In fact, the vast majority of fireworks sold will not be subject to the Bill, and nor will people who let off fireworks in back gardens or anywhere else.

Mr. Rowe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Griffiths: No. The hon. Gentleman also made a grave error; he belittled the number of injuries and compared them unfavourably with deaths in other sectors as if a large number of deaths in one sector means that we should not pay attention to the deaths and, more important, injuries from fireworks.

Mr. Rowe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Griffiths: No. The hon. Gentleman had a chance to participate in previous debates on this issue and he failed to do so.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is not relevant whether a Member has participated previously? This debate is free standing. If the Minister is too afraid to give way to take proper questions from the Chamber, that is a matter for him, but it is nothing to do with an hon. Member's previous participation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can also confirm that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister to decide whether to give way to another hon. Member.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal that, if a Front Bencher misinterprets something that an hon. Member says, he should give way to have it explained?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a normal point of order, either.

Mr. Griffiths: There was no misinterpretation of what the hon. Member said.
I come to my second point, which relates to fees. We are giving the Secretary of State the back-up power to set fees if there is not agreement on them by those who run the courses. There are two sets of fees. First, there are fees for licensing. It is interesting that Opposition Members now say that those who are licensed should set their fees. I did not notice them advance that argument for taxi drivers, publicans, builders or developers. That is a red herring. The second set of fees is course fees. Everyone in the House of Commons agrees that, if agreement can be reached on course fees, that is fine. We want a lot of providers to come forward and run courses. If a number of people are running courses, it is likely that the level of fees will reflect the market. That is what we all hope for, and it is exactly what is in the Bill.
What the other place has wisely suggested in its amendments, and in backing up the essence of clause 10, is that, if there is not agreement on fees or, if someone should, as hon. Members have suggested, have a monopoly of the market, the Secretary of State should have the backstop powers to set the fees herself.

Mr. Maclean: I merely wish to take the Minister up on his statement that the fees charged by companies will reflect the level of the market and that that is in the Bill.

I cannot see what provision he has made in the Bill to ensure that the fees he will set will reflect costs or the market.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to what I said, but that is hardly surprising. If several people provide courses, they will set the fees. As for the level at which fees should be set, it was made clear in the evidence that the other place took from Mr. Mason—and repeated by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) as a general principle of government—that the fees should reflect the general costs incurred and not higher costs, and should not be intended to produce a profit. I wholly endorse that principle. I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is reassured on that point.

Mr. Lansley: My point was made in relation to the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in granting or varying a licence. Where fees for attendance at a training course are involved, they can be set by the market. It would be helpful if the Minister explained in what circumstances he thinks the Secretary of State would or would not intervene to set fees that were different from those determined by the market in the normal way.

Mr. Griffiths: If there was one provider of training courses and a complaint was made that it had a monopoly on provision and that the fees it charged were unfair, my right hon. Friend might well hear representations on the matter and, after discussions, seek to make alterations. However, I do not believe that those circumstances will arise, because several groups—people who have taken a great interest in the industry over many years—are already interested in running courses. One is the CBI explosives industry group, which has considerable knowledge of the subject and is especially keen to develop and run a training course. Other organisations might also want to run training courses, but if they are to be able to do so and to set the fees that we have debated today, we have to pass the Bill.
I am sorry to say that the worst sort of filibuster appears to be going on. The British Pyrotechnists Association has been following our proceedings today; it was so concerned about the delays and filibustering that it took the opportunity offered by the private notice question to send a letter to me deploring the attempt being made by the Opposition—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister himself is now in danger of going outside the scope of the Lords amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Griffiths: The letter makes it clear that, in the Lords amendments and in accepting the need for fees, the BPA is able and willing to run training courses and wants the Bill to be passed quickly. The letter is signed not only by the chairman of the BPA, but by members of the CBI explosives industry group.
This morning, we have heard hon. Members who do not know the scope of the Bill and who do not care that the current arrangements mean that there is a higher than necessary number of injuries. I invite the House to accept


the Lords amendments and the whole Bill, because it has the support of the whole country, with the exception of the Conservative party.

Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, even though the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for substantial parts of the debate.

Mr. Waterson: That is wholly untrue, as was the Minister's previous assertion. As he spent much of my speech chuntering under his breath instead of listening to what I had to say, he probably did not hear me wish the Bill a fair wind—

Mr. Forth: Oh!

Mr. Waterson: I said that the official Opposition would not be voting against the Bill. Does the Minister remember my saying that?

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) saying, "Oh!" and groaning when the hon. Gentleman said that he wished the Bill a fair wind. It is the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the real Conservatives, not the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench—and that is the problem.
The House should accept the Government's view that the Lords amendment is acceptable and reject all the arguments against it made by Conservative Members because our record on this matter does us a great deal of credit. The record of certain Conservative Members does not do them credit.

Mr. Leigh: Why?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman asks why. When he was at the Dispatch Box doing this job between 1990 and 1993, the number of people injured by fireworks rose by 46.3 per cent., which means that up to an extra 335 people ended up in hospital because of his incompetent handling of his brief. I ask the House to accept the amendment, because our record of stewardship on the matter has shown a dramatic decline in the number of fireworks injuries and we want to ensure that the trend continues.

Mr. Lansley: The Minister is not responding to the carefully argued points made on the amendments. As he knows, I said that I was perfectly happy to support the Bill and, indeed, most of the amendments, but not the one relating to charging fees for training. The Minister is not responding to that argument, which is the subject of the debate.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not accepting the hon. Gentleman's rejection of the amendment, because it would hobble the

Bill and ensure that there was an unworkable regime because of the innate hostility to fees. I am sorry that he has taken part in the filibustering.

Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Griffiths: As I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I shall. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the House and the country for his stewardship on this issue.

Mr. Leigh: The point that the Minister made, which attacked me personally, was outrageous rubbish. He virtually said that I rape nuns and eat babies and that I was personally responsible for people dying because of fireworks injuries. That is an outrageous suggestion, and he should withdraw it. The Minister should reply to the serious concerns that we have raised in the debate. If he thinks the amendment so important, why did he not include it in the Bill in the first place?

Mr. Griffiths: One of the great advantages of a parliamentary democracy is that one listens to the informed views of others. We listened to the views on the amendment. It will improve the Bill, and we accept it for that reason. I fear that Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate and not taken the opportunity to contribute to the constructive framing of the Bill will succeed only in talking it out, which would deprive us of a valuable tool further to tackle fireworks injuries. I commend the amendment and the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: As the last Opposition Member to speak on the amendment, I want to say a few words. In view of the Minister's provocative attacks on some of my hon. Friends, I could be tempted to speak longer than my wont, but I shall keep my remarks relatively brief.
The Minister made a general attack, suggesting that some of my hon. Friends did not fully understand the Bill's scope. No one can understand its full extent because, in almost every clause, the Minister has taken to himself general powers to make regulations on any matter under the sun, including fees. I regret that the Minister did not confine his remarks to the amendments before us or deal with the particular questions raised by my hon. Friends.
I wish to make another point absolutely clear. It is some time since I was on the Front Bench. What my Front-Bench colleagues in the official Opposition think of the Bill is their concern. I speak individually, and the Lords amendments trouble me. The other place was no doubt concerned to build more safeguards into the Bill, and probably considered the amendments to be safeguards. I am troubled by them because they seem to arise from a misunderstanding of what the Government have the power to do sensibly and wisely. Governments often make the great mistake of believing that they can read the market and fix a price that the market will bear. The Government will have great difficulty in making a judgment on what fees should be charged for training.
The amendment contains no criteria for the level of fees, so the other place has not been up to its usual drafting standard. It has sent us an amendment giving the Secretary of State the power to set fees, but it has not done what it usually does—set criteria by which the


Secretary of State may come to a conclusion on the fee to be set. If the criterion is the average or maximum price that the market will bear, or the level that would enable all the high-quality training that the Bill envisages to be carried out, that would give us some guidance on the level of fees that the Secretary of State has in mind and the criteria that she and her officials would use when determining the price to be fixed.
12.45 pm
When one reads the Bill, one sees the quality of training that must be given and the proficiency required. Training fees are referred to in clause 10, but they relate to every part of the Bill where training is stipulated. It is also stipulated in clause 5, under which people must show that they are proficient and qualified. I presume, therefore, that it is not merely a matter of the Secretary of State fixing fees in accordance with the cheapest course on the market.
I have experience—admittedly, many years ago—of training in industry. We would have had incredible difficulty had the then Government fixed the fees for the training courses that we provided. If I thought that the Government were fixing the fees, I would lay on the gold-plated, six-week residential course. When companies paid the fees themselves, we started with a five-day course and whittled it down to a two-day or highly intensive 10-hour course, and the fee structure was radically different.
Obviously, the Secretary of State will not want to set the fees prohibitively high. She will set them at a level of full cost recovery, as I presume that her administrative costs must also be added to the fees collected. If so, there will be a Government charge for administering the fee structure, and the Secretary of State will then pick a level of fees that she considers reasonable. If it were not reasonable, it would be subject to judicial review, but what is reasonable in terms of the Bill? if it came to judicial review, their Lordships would have to study all the requirements in the Bill and the quality standards that have been set. I shall not go down the route of discussing quality standards, because that would be outside the scope of the amendment. Nevertheless, the fees that the Secretary of State sets must take into account what people are supposed to know and prove that they are proficient in, under clause 5.
When one looks at the regulations that the Secretary of State has the power to make and the classes of people to whom they can apply, one assumes that only big organisations laying on big, commercial firework displays will be affected. However, according to my reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations stipulating that training may apply to anyone who lets off fireworks, even in small village displays. The Bill does not exempt those people.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maclean: The Minister shakes his head as if to say, "Oh no, we won't go that far. We are only trying to catch the big events organised by municipalities. We don't intend to go after the little fellow who has bought some fireworks to set off for his children." On the other hand, if the Minister is to be as successful as everyone

wants him to be in reducing the number of accidents and injuries resulting from fireworks, should he not acknowledge that most of those injuries occur because some individuals behave stupidly with fireworks, not because big organised public displays go wrong?
I return to the fees issue. If the Minister wants to meet his safety objectives in the Bill, he must encompass in the training courses a range of people—not only the big Brocks, ICIs and CBIs of this world. He must get the training courses to the small punters who lay on little bonfire displays, and let off fireworks, on every village green. If those people are not caught by the training requirement, there is not much point in the training provisions, because such small displays probably make up the majority of firework displays in the country and, probably, the majority of accidents happen at small firework displays—but I shall happily be corrected.
If those one-off punters who have some fireworks on bonfire night are to be trained and fees are to be set, what sort of training courses will be necessary for them, and what level of fees will they be charged? The Minister has given us no hint of the criteria that he will apply when setting fees. I believe that he tried to argue that he would base the fee level entirely on market forces. I do not know how a Government Department can make a judgment on the right level of fees. Will it choose the average price in the market? Alternatively, will it choose the price that the market will bear, and how will it do so?
I had hoped that the Minister would categorically rule out using the fee mechanism to produce further policing. Some of my colleagues hinted that it could be done. The Bill would allow the Minister to do so because it does not set criteria to tie his judgment in setting the level of fees. The Minister did not answer my hon. Friends' argument that he could use the pricing mechanism to fund adequately only the gold-plated courses, forcing others out of the market. If he introduced regulations to outlaw firework displays by the little punters, he could force through the complete municipalisation—indeed, almost nationalisation—of firework displays.
It may be the view in some quarters that the only fireworks that people should be allowed to see are those that are laid on by big organisations and councils. That aspect of the Bill worries me, because it means that it can be used to get at individuals who want to set off fireworks themselves. I deplore all those foolish individuals who do not use fireworks safely; I wish that the Bill had been a small Bill, dealing exclusively with tightening safety rules relating to children, especially sales to children. However, the Minister has in the Bill a huge blunderbuss measure, with lots of powers in every clause. In my view, the power that he is taking for the Government to set fees will do nothing to reduce accidents.
The Minister may say that training will reduce accidents. It could do so if the right people were trained—which they may not be—but I do not, for the life of me, understand how giving the Minister the power to set fees will help to reduce accidents. The fees to be set by future Ministers are irrelevant to the safety arguments that the Minister put.
The Minister ranged widely in his speech and made some blatantly political points. I shall not take that route; I confine my remarks to the Lords amendment. The Minister has not dealt with the points raised, including the


point that I and my hon. Friends have made that the level of fees set by the Minister does not enhance the safety case one iota.
I regret that the Minister replied as he did, and that he did not specifically address any of the points raised by my hon. Friends. On Fridays, when we debate private Members' business, my hon. Friends have a perfect right to scrutinise legislation. The Lords amendments have not previously been seen. It is irrelevant for the Minister to say that some hon. Members present have not participated in earlier debates on the Bill. None of us had seen the Lords amendments relating to fees previously, and it is valid for any of us to participate in that argument today.
I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who will probably reply briefly, will pick up some of the points raised by my hon. Friends. I am still disturbed not just by large parts of the Bill, but by the suggestion that the Government must set the level of fees because that will somehow improve safety, and lead to fewer accidents and fewer children being blinded. That is nonsense. No one wants to see children blinded or fools messing about with fireworks, but there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent people from misbehaving badly with fireworks—in the same way that no legislation can stop footballers misbehaving badly on the pitch.
The Minister is trying to create the false argument that, if hon. Members do not vote for the Bill, it will result in many more accidents involving young people. If the Minister wanted to reduce the number of fireworks accidents involving young people, he should have introduced a measure that was specifically targeted at that objective rather than introducing Henry VIII powers regarding regulations for everything under the sun, including training courses and fee setting by the Government.

Mrs. Gilroy: Before turning to the amendments, I point out to the House that my Bill was considered carefully by the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, in addition to being debated in another place and in Standing Committee. Opposition Members have expressed concern about not having had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. However, we welcomed the contribution by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and accepted an amendment. That showed, from an early stage, that we were prepared to take account of points raised by hon. Members in an attempt to improve the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: Is this the hon. Lady's Bill or was it given to her by the Government?

Mrs. Gilroy: Hon. Members may know that I am the first member of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration to be elected to the House, and I have taken a great interest in issues to do with consumer protection and safety.
We have also received assistance from the Confederation of British Industry explosives industry group and the British Pyrotechnists Association. It is clear from the communication that my hon. Friend the Minister received, and to which he referred earlier, that those organisations do not object to the fee-making powers in the amendments.
Amendment Nos. 1 to 4 are related, and I shall discuss them together. They relate to clause 10 of my Bill, which includes powers to make provision for, among other

things, fees for the grant or variation of licences for training providers and for attendance at training courses. My Bill currently provides for either the Secretary of State or any body or bodies established or recognised by the Secretary of State to make provision for such fees.
The amendments were prompted by concerns expressed by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation—I should have thought that Opposition Members would have more respect for such a body—when it considered very fully the various regulation-making provisions in my Bill. The Select Committee was concerned to ensure that fee setting remained within the control of the Secretary of State. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of its report—which I imagine that Opposition Members have considered fully—the Select Committee expressed the view that fees should either be approved by the Secretary of State or be subject to a limit specified in the regulations.

Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gilroy: No, I want to make progress. There is much more to be debated in the Bill, and hon. Members are waiting to consider other legislation.
The report also suggested that the Lords might consider whether a suitable ministerial undertaking would be satisfactory. In the Select Committee's view, that would have been sufficient. In any event, the Lords decided that the issue would be dealt with better by amendment.
The amendments to clause 10 will, therefore, ensure that only the Secretary of State will be able to make provision regarding fees for training licences and fees for attendance at training courses. That would also provide a means of ensuring that fees were not set at excessive levels.

Mr. Paice: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) should make it clear when she is refusing to take an intervention. I understand that she has completed her speech.

Mrs. Gilroy: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not notice the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) attempting to get in. I was in the course of my last sentence, so I was concentrating on finishing.

1 pm

Mr. Paice: In that case, I would like to speak for a moment.
The Minister is right. I have only just come in, but the point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) is making goes close to a matter of great interest to me—training. Having run a private sector training company for years before I came into the House, and having been privileged to be the Minister with responsibility for training, I do not know of any other situation where the Minister is given the power to set the fees for attending a training course.
There are many other examples, including pesticides—the issue that the next Bill is about—driving forklift trucks and driving heavy goods vehicles, where the requirement is for training, rightly, but there is no example, to my knowledge, where the Minister is given such a power. That is why I was seeking to intervene on the hon. Member for Sutton. I wanted to ask whether she could name another piece of legislation in which the Government take on themselves the setting of fees for training courses.
I do not believe that there is any such example. It is a pity that the hon. Lady was not able to give way. Obviously, if she can come back and cite an example, I would be delighted, but, given that Labour says that it understands for the first time how industry and commerce work, I cannot imagine how it could possibly put into legislation the power for a Minister to set training course fees. Unless the hon. Lady or the Minister can give an example of legislation that gives that power to a Minister, I cannot see how the amendment can be acceptable.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 2.

Division No. 327]
[1.1 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Kemp, Fraser


Austin, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Bradshaw, Ben
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Lepper, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Livingstone, Ken


Burnett, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Caplin, Ivor
McFall, John


Chaytor, David
McNulty, Tony


Cotter, Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Darvill, Keith
Pound, Stephen


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Purchase, Ken


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Rooker, Jeff


Dowd, Jim
Ryan, Ms Joan


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Stunell, Andrew


Efford, Clive
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Fearn, Ronnie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Flynn, Paul
Truswell, Paul


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wallace, James


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Hill, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Iddon, Dr Brian
Angela Smith and


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mr. Richard Burden.


NOES



Tellers for the Noes:


Paterson, Owen
Mr. Edward Leigh and


Walter, Robert
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the sake of clarification, am I right to believe that you are grouping together two amendments that relate to two different clauses—clauses 5 and 7—and then, in a

different grouping, two amendments, Nos. 6 and 8, that relate to a clause and a schedule? Does that complicate matters or is it how it should be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has made the selection, which is perfectly in order. It is quite common practice that if amendments applying to different clauses and schedules are seen to be pertinent and relevant, they will be taken together. There is nothing wrong with that.

Clause 14

PROHIBITION OF SUPPLY ETC. OF OTHER EXPLOSIVES.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 8, line 6, leave out—
("under this section") and insert ("by virtue of this subsection").

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mrs. Gilroy.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 7.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I do not wish to detain the House because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I am broadly sympathetic to the Bill and I want to see that it has a fair wind. I wish to speak to amendment No. 7, which creates something of a hurdle to the regulations that the Secretary of State might make under clauses 1(2) and 14(3). For the purposes of brevity, I will confine my remarks to regulations that might be made under clause 1(2).
As drafted, clause 1(2) contains a major deficiency, which raises a serious issue. It says:
The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1).
Subsection (1) is the heart of the Bill, as it contains the definition of fireworks. Subsection (1)(b) defines fireworks as devices that
would be fireworks for those purposes if they were intended as a form of entertainment.
That gives some suggestion of how incredibly broad the definition is. It has nothing to do with the nature and properties of what one might consider to be a firework, but relates only to how the device might be used. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was decided that that broad definition should be amended. Without the amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the narrowness of the amendment to which he purports to speak. The amendment relates entirely to whether the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. He may address the House only on that matter.

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly agree with that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The purpose of the amendment is to determine whether such regulations should be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. The amendment relates to a serious deficiency in the Bill. It used to be a principle that one could not amend primary legislation by means of secondary legislation. As drafted, the Bill means not only that primary legislation can be amended by secondary legislation, but that that can be done under the negative resolution procedure. A Minister will be able to


propose a regulation, lay it on the Table and, 40 days later—with no reference to the House except for the rather ineffectual praying procedure that exists for negative resolutions—amend an Act of Parliament. Moreover, in this case, he will be able to amend the clause that goes to the very heart of the Bill.
I believe that we should support the amendment, but I make the fundamental point that even the positive resolution procedure, which requires the assent of both Houses of Parliament, is an inadequate protection for legislation that has gone through all stages in both Houses. We should not fall into the habit of framing legislation so that it can be fundamentally amended, even with the consent of both Houses. We should support the amendment, but the Bill is inadequately protected and deeply flawed, which explains why Lord Renton of Mount Harry said that it was the most extraordinary piece of legislation that he had come across in all his years in the law and in politics.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I support amendment No. 7, which I hope is acceptable to the Bill's promoter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has already indicated that she supports the amendment.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to you for drawing that to my attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, unless the amendment is agreed to, the Bill will be deficient; we will be unable to scrutinise it, as we will not know what the end result will be.
There have been a number of cases in which definitions in legislation have not been tightened up, with most extraordinary results. The amendment will in no way thwart the intentions of those who want the Bill to be enacted, but it will ensure that when the Minister has provisionally taken a decision and taken appropriate action, Parliament can consider that decision—albeit after it has been made—and say whether it is a good idea.
Finally it would have been a great deal better—this is an important point, which I want to place on record—if the principle that we could scrutinise what we are being asked to pass had been built into the Bill in its entirety, instead of a lot of mechanisms that mean that we do not know what its final shape will be. It is sad—I state it no more strongly than that—that when my hon. Friends have tried to point that out over and over again, they have for some reason been misunderstood not only by the promoter of the Bill but by the Minister, which says something about the Government's attitude to such legislation.

Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 7, which was made in another place, states:
Regulations under section 1(2) or 14(3) shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
To discuss sensibly whether the affirmative or the negative procedure should be used, one must look at those parts of the Bill. Clause 14(3) states:
The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2)"—
of section 14. Clause 14(2) states:

In this section 'explosives' has the same meaning as in the Explosives Act 1875.
The amendment also states that the affirmative procedure should be used in respect of amendments made to clause 1(2). Clause 1 states:
In this Act 'fireworks' means devices",
and goes on to describe fireworks. Clause 1(2) states:
The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1).
From the tortuous way in which the Bill is written, I conclude that, if we accept the amendment, the powers that the Secretary of State has taken in the Bill to amend the meaning of a firework and an explosive in the fireworks and explosives Acts will be subject to affirmative resolution. I sincerely believe that we must accept it, as it is a tiny safeguard against the draconian powers that the Secretary of State has taken.
It is totally wrong that we should be in this situation in the first place, and that the Secretary of State should be able to take powers by regulation—just one of the many thousand regulations that she can make under the Bill. She has taken unto herself powers to amend the Acts defining fireworks and explosives. Thankfully, the other place has done its little bit to tighten up those draconian powers by stating that a draft must be laid before each House and approved by affirmative resolution.
Affirmative resolution must be the bare minimum if the Secretary of State is to have such powers. It would be extraordinary if regulations that amend the fireworks and explosives Acts could be passed through the negative procedure in this House. I am not sure of the extent of the Explosives Act. It is an important measure, but I think that it merely defines explosives—whether they are shotgun cartridges, smoke cartridges or mountain rescue flares. Obviously, the definition includes large pyrotechnics, explosives, military explosives and so forth.
That measure was enacted in 1875. People accept that pyrotechnics and explosives change from time to time. New ones are invented—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened with patience to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that the amendment to which he is speaking concerns whether regulations made under clauses 1(2) or 14(3) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—that point, and that point only.

Mr. Maclean: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall concentrate on that. I was trying to make the point—I apologise if I did not make it clearly enough—that regulations may be a sensible way of dealing with changes in fireworks technology or—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman repeating his error.

Mr. Maclean: Their Lordships have said that the affirmative procedure would be better, and I believe that it is absolutely essential.
The director of consumer safety and standards, Mr. Peter Mason, said:
The degree of distress and anxiety that would justify ministers coming to Parliament, even under a negative resolution procedure, to justify some of the actions that we have talked about, would have to be pretty extensive. What we have been anxious to do is to make clear that we can take into account various factors which are not


available to us under the 1987 Act. It is certainly not the intention that these powers should be exercised for trivial reasons. In fact, I think that although subsection (2)(a) gives the vires for the regulations, one also has to pay attention to the political realities. We would have to be able to defend what we were doing through the consultation process, through Parliament's scrutiny processes and ultimately the negative resolution procedure. I do not think there is anything further I can say on that…I would say about the negative resolution procedure that we have a lot of experience of making resolutions under the 1987 Act, using this procedure. It is certainly one that I regard as being effective in so far as we know that the stuff that we write is subject to review, it is capable of being prayed against…I do not regard that negative resolution procedure as being in any way an ineffective constraint.
That is Mr. Peter Mason's view, not mine. We all know that the Government are embarked on a lot of legislation that contains order-making powers, the vast majority under the negative resolution procedure. It would be a disservice to the House, and to an industry that legitimately manufactures explosives for use by the military, and fireworks for the enjoyment of millions of people, if the principal Acts were suddenly amended by Ministers through the negative resolution procedure.
No matter what we all may say publicly about the wonderful scrutiny that we give matters in the House, the scrutiny that Committees give even to changes made by affirmative resolution is not what it used to be, and not what many of us would like it to be. The negative procedure allows a huge amount of important legislation to be enacted, and I found it extremely convenient when I was a Minister. I jumped at any chance to use it, because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not enter into a general discussion of two forms of procedure. The question is whether these specific regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr. Maclean: My specific point is that the other place has determined that we should use the affirmative resolution procedure. The only general point that I was making was that the House sometimes does not give enough scrutiny to other legislation and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is exceeding the bounds. For the second time, he has repeated a matter for which I have already reproved him. I shall be forced to look at the Standing Orders if he persists.

Mr. Maclean: I have no intention of persisting, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have misunderstood your ruling, and I will comply with it entirely. I was coming to the end of my remarks.
Although the other amendments are of concern, amendment No. 5 provides an essential safeguard. The House still has an important part to play in the conduct of national affairs, even if that role is declining. We can take powers to make sure that legislation is scrutinised properly, and affirmative resolution is the right way to do that for the powers in an enormously draconian Bill. The other place has done a service to Parliament and to the people of the United Kingdom by insisting that we use that procedure.

Mr. Forth: In following the perceptive remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border

(Mr. Maclean), I am drawn to the fact that clauses 14 and 16 include powers on the prohibition and supply of explosives other than fireworks as well as fireworks themselves. There is an important distinction between fireworks and explosives, as my right hon. Friend said. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 relate to key clauses in the Bill, to which clauses 14 and 16 refer explicitly. Amendment No. 7 also refers directly to clauses 1(2) and 14(3). Our debate, therefore, is about the definition of fireworks under primary legislation, and about explosives.
The arcane wording of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that he may have found a way to discuss the wider issues to which he has referred, let me tell him that amendment No. 5 is a drafting amendment, and there can be only the narrowest of debates on it. Amendment No. 7, as I have already reminded the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), relates specifically to whether regulations to be made under specified clauses should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. Both points are very narrow.

Mr. Forth: Indeed they are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That makes them all the more interesting and relevant. They may have specific effects on businesses that supply fireworks or explosives, and on those who enjoy fireworks or who use explosives for legitimate reasons. The wording of amendment No. 5 is narrow, substituting
by virtue of this subsection
for
under this section".
The form of words is somewhat obscure, but it certainly refers to explosives and fireworks, and to regulation making. I can understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border concentrated on amendment No. 7, which refers to clause 16.
We are in important territory here, which is not to say that the wording of previous amendments was not of importance. All words in every Bill are of crucial importance. When a Bill reaches the statute book, its words have legislative effect on every individual in the country. They can affect businesses and employment. Every word of this highly regulatory Bill has the potential—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. By his own words, the right hon. Gentleman is extending his remarks well beyond the scope of the amendment. I must remind him to confine his remarks to the narrow amendment No. 7, to which he says he is speaking and which is about the affirmative resolution procedure—that, and that alone.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. We are discussing the extent to which the House agrees with the Lords. In making alterations to primary legislation, should Ministers be able to do it simply by regulation, as originally suggested—or, as has usefully been suggested in amendment No. 7, should we provide that
Regulations…shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been…approved by a resolution of each House."?


I shall return to that, but I want to remind the House that we are discussing clause 1(2), which is fundamental to the Bill and, therefore, the functioning of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No we are not. We are talking about whether the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, but amendment No. 7 refers to
Regulations under section 1(2) or 14(3)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to realise that we cannot go back to the substance of the clause to which the regulations refer. The debate is simply on the mechanical question whether the affirmative resolution procedure should apply.

Mr. Forth: I would not dream of challenging what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should have thought that what I was saying was relevant to a discussion of the importance of changing the mechanism, which I was relating back to the seriousness of the substance to which the mechanism relates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is challenging my ruling. If he wishes to continue to speak, I suggest that he confines himself to the terms of amendment No. 7.

Mr. Forth: That is helpful to me because I shall now embark on the main thrust of my remarks, which relate to amendment No. 7 and whether regulations should be made
unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
That is the crucial substance of the amendment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border rightly emphasised, which I wish to explore further.
Those of us with some passing familiarity with the proceedings of the House and the making of legislation know how crucial it is to have a mechanism to ensure that each House has a proper opportunity to consider statutory instruments, especially where they alter primary legislation, as in this case. Bills such as this, with provisions that would allow Ministers, by secondary legislation and the powers given thereby, to alter the meaning of primary legislation always cause nervousness, as you, with your long experience know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
That is why there has been a broad welcome for amendment No. 7. The other place has given us reassurance that we welcome. If I may say so without incurring your displeasure and strictly in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that yet again affirms the value of the work of the other House. I am sure that we all want to record our gratitude to it for allowing us to debate this matter and include the amendment.
The great danger was that, in its original form, the Bill did not offer us such a safeguard. We cannot know until we hear an explanation from the Minister or the Bill's promoter whether that was an oversight or whether it was deliberate. I hope that we shall be given some idea about that.
One of the difficulties of these debates has been that, for reasons known only to themselves, neither the promoter nor the Minister has chosen to explain why they are recommending, or not recommending, amendments. To some extent we are unguided in our reaction to them, because we have not yet had the privilege of such an explanation. That it obviously a matter for their judgment, but it puts us at a disadvantage, and it may be the reason why ever so occasionally we inadvertently stray from the strict material of the amendments. One would assume or hope that the understanding of the contents of the Bill is that much greater in the case of the Minister and the promoter, although I hope that they would—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am going to say now to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I am getting very close to considering that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks fall within the terms of Standing Order No. 42. I put him on final warning. I shall ask him to resume his seat if he persists in offending against that Standing Order.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, as ever, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to emphasise that the provisions in amendment No. 7 are of great reassurance to us because they allow at least the possibility of the House of Commons and the other place giving some consideration to the proposals that may come forward in a statutory instrument. That may not allow us to amend the substance—the procedure does not allow for that—but at least it would provide that vital safeguard that we all increasingly look for against the power of the Executive to change legislation, make regulations and so on. That is the safeguard that is contained in the amendment. It is for that reason that I welcome the amendment today and wish it fair passage.

Mr. Leigh: This has proved an interesting debate. Everyone who has spoken so far has assumed that the amendment is worth while and that, if the Minister wishes to amend the definition of a firework, that decision should be subject to an affirmative resolution of the House. Everyone seems to think that that is what we should do. That is probably right, but I am not sure that we have considered what would happen if there were an emergency, in which case the affirmative resolution route might delay the Minister in taking urgent action to protect the public.
My recollection is hazy as to whether in the past the Minister has had to act urgently. I suspect that until now we have had a fairly good system under the Explosives Act 1875 and other consumer protection legislation that has given Ministers the power to intervene quickly to ban a product or to label it in a certain way to protect the public. Those who are promoting the Bill have, for perfectly justifiable reasons, produced a Bill which, because it is wide in its scope and contains Henry VIII clauses, has prompted the other place to insist on requiring the Minister to proceed by way of the affirmative resolution procedure if he wishes to label an item as an explosive.
Those who spoke in the other place said that Ministers should not be given free rein to do what they thought fit. Everyone who has spoken in today's debate has accepted that. I can give one practical example of a case in which the delay that may be engendered by the affirmative


resolution procedure could lead to unfortunate results, and in which the existing procedure, whereby the Minister can intervene quickly, is more appropriate. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on this point.
What if the fireworks industry came up with a new product which, say, used compressed gas to fire a pyrotechnic shell? That would overcome the ban imposed on aerial shells after Mr. David Hattersley, a head teacher from High Wycombe, was killed by such a device when the explosive charge that was supposed to launch the shell went off sooner than expected while he was leaning over the launch tube. Under the existing procedure, the Minister could act quite urgently in such a case. However, as in the example I have given, the industry might attempt to circumvent the individual firework ban by using technology that is just beyond the scope of the existing legislation. The industry would not cynically attempt to circumvent what Parliament or the Minister had decided, but it might do what I have described in an attempt to make a safer product. In such a case, others might want the Secretary of State to act quickly to exclude the unproven new breed of device.
1.45 pm
The Minister should be able to ban such devices, as Ministers in the past have been able to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I, who have both had responsibility in this sphere, often had to act quickly to ban particular products. The first action taken by my right hon. Friend on becoming Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs was to ban a particular product. In such circumstances, we would say, "We will ban the product without having to go through the delays engendered by the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament, but then we shall give the industry a chance to discharge its burden of proof and, in that way, we shall determine whether the product is safe." At least we could act quickly in such circumstances.
What worries me is that, because Parliament is rightly concerned about the Bill's wide-ranging powers—in a sense, that is the devil in the legislation—Parliament is circumscribing the Minister's power to act quickly when public safety is at stake. On the other hand, I can understand why my hon. Friends feel that it is necessary for Parliament to be involved through the affirmative resolution procedure. I understand and support their argument that, because the Bill is so wide-ranging, it can almost reinvent itself in the sense that it can give ever wider powers to Ministers to determine what is or is not a firework. My hon. Friends do not want to give such power to Ministers.

Mr. Jenkin: My understanding, and I might have misunderstood, is that, in the normal course of events, and unless provision is made for emergency regulations, any regulations laid on the Table cannot come into force until they have lain on the Table for 40 days. Therefore, the amendment would not engender any further delay. If my understanding is incorrect, I hope that my hon. Friend will enlighten me.

Mr. Leigh: I have tried to think through in my mind whether or not the amendment would engender further

delays. My personal understanding might be wrong and my hon. Friend's right, in which case the debate will have produced a proper outcome and I shall be satisfied. I simply wish to press the point, which is worrying to me, even though I understand why, because of the nature of the Bill and the way in which it is drafted, hon. Members want these matters to be brought before Parliament and the Minister to be obliged to explain—albeit in a truncated and often unsatisfactory debate—what is or is not a firework.
In Committee, hon. Members mentioned issues such as distress flares or bird scarers. The Minister might consider a distress flare to be a firework, especially given that, some time ago, an appalling act of homicide caused by a distress flare took place on the football terraces. Whether such flares should be included in the ambit of the legislation might be precisely the sort of issue that the Minister might want to discuss with Parliament.
The other problem is that distress flares are also used to protect lives at sea and on mountainsides, and therefore play a very positive role. In the case of an appalling incident such as the one that I described, in which a hooligan used a distress flare and caused injury, there would immediately be great public pressure on the Minister to bring the product within the ambit of the Bill.
Our concern about the amendment is that Ministers will be able to act very quickly. Of course, they would want to act properly, and would not take action without advice from officials, but occasionally Ministers and officials make mistakes and Ministers are put under pressure. If there is not a time for calm reflection and the matters cannot come before Parliament, a mistake may be made. We are worried that a product may be banned and that—although that may deal with a problem such as that which I described, which engendered public pressure forcing Ministers to act—there might be unforeseen consequences.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have calmly reflected and decided that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of repeating himself.

Mr. Leigh: I shall not deal further with that particular case.

Mr. Jenkin: I may inadvertently have given the House misleading information. Having taken informal advice on statutory instruments, I understand that, unless the parent statute signifies that a statutory instrument cannot come into force immediately, a Minister may table a statutory instrument and it can come into force immediately, whether it is required to lie on the Table or requires affirmative resolution. Therefore, the amendment places no restriction on how quickly a new regulation can come into force.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I respect his judgment, but I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I should like the Minister to confirm that point.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is not here.

Mr. Leigh: I do not understand why the Minister is not here, when we are discussing matters of public safety. I


am not sure that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is present, is the appropriate Minister and capable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very interesting and amusing, but it has nothing to do with the amendment before us.

Mr. Leigh: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was intervened on.
Other matters might cause the Minister to act, such as pesticidal smoke cartridges; shotgun cartridges; magnesium blocks, which are sold to help to light fires in emergencies; Hilti guns, which fire heavy-duty bolts and nails in the construction industry; alarm mines—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the substance of the amendment, which concerns the simple question whether the affirmative resolution procedure should be used.

Mr. Leigh: I am coming to the end of my points, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In going through that list, I was showing you and the House that there may be doubt about whether or not numerous devices are fireworks, because of the nature of the explosive charges they contain. It is right that such matters come to the House to be considered properly and for the Minister to have to justify his actions.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be nice if the Minister could now reply to the debate.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): For the avoidance of doubt, the Government accept the amendments sent from the other place.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 0.

Division No. 328]
[1.53 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hill, Keith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Austin, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Bradshaw, Ben
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brand, Dr Peter
Kemp, Fraser


Brinton, Mrs Helen
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Buck, Ms Karen
Lepper, David


Burden, Richard
McFall, John


Burnett, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Caplin, Ivor
McNulty, Tony


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Colman, Tony
Pearson, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pickthall, Colin


Cotter, Brian
Purchase, Ken


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Rooker, Jeff


Dowd, Jim
Ryan, Ms Joan


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Savidge, Malcolm


Efford, Clive
Stunell, Andrew


Fearn, Ronnie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Flynn, Paul
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Walter, Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Heald, Oliver






Tellers for the Ayes:



Angela Smith and



Mr. Patrick Hall.



NOES


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that the Bill is largely an enabling measure, it would assist the House greatly if we knew the Government's line on the various measures in it. Is it in order for the Minister to remain seated for so long in this debate, when an intervention early in the debate, with a clear statement about the Government's view on the various enabling proposals, would have facilitated progress? Why have we been denied a statement? Is it in order for the Minister to remain seated for as long as he has?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly not a question of order as to which hon. Member, whether on the Government Front Bench or not, contributes to a debate in the House. We are considering a private Member's Bill which is being piloted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) to question whether there has been a Government response, when the Government gave that response and he was not here to listen to it, or to the answers to the very questions that he put?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is no better a point of order than the last one.

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all understand that Ministers have duties outside the Chamber that necessarily occupy their time. In the previous debate on Lords amendments, it would have been very informative to have had the Minister's view—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just dealt with the substantive point of order raised by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).

Mr. Jenkin: It is a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It does not sound like it.

Mr. Jenkin: Would it be in order for the Minister to answer now the points that were raised?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Most certainly not. The hon. Gentleman must know that that confuses completely a point of order with a point of debate.

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you check Hansard on Monday and the Minister's claims that the Government have responded to


the debate? I have been here throughout this morning's proceedings and I did not hear any such response. I am not asking that you request the Minister to reply now—of course not—but I ask you to check Hansard in order to see what was said. The Minister's comments appear to be at variance with my understanding of what happened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What has been said will be on the record for all to see.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the Minister was not here for large parts of the previous debate, I felt that it was appropriate to divide the House—if only in protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order as to whether the Minister is obliged to take part in the debate.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 8, line 8, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mrs. Gilroy]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.

Mr. Forth: This is a clear case—perhaps the clearest that we have had to date—of how it would be helpful if, at the outset of our consideration of the amendments, we were given the courtesy of some brief explanation as to why the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), recommends the amendments to the House. Amendment No. 6 may be detailed and technical—it may even improve the Bill—but it would assist the House to know why and how that is so.
That argument applies even more strongly to amendment No. 8. Those of us who have not had time to scrutinise the amendment this morning—we have been rather busy and in the Chamber all the time, unlike the Minister—want to know why the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 is relevant to fireworks legislation. Given the obvious obscurity and very detailed nature of these amendments, in particular, it would be helpful if the Bill's promoter would do us the privilege of explaining at this stage the reasons for the amendments and why she believes that they should be accepted.

Mrs. Gilroy: The amendments are simply drafting and tidying-up measures. My father was a civil engineer who was much given to tidying the roads, and I am pleased to ensure that this Bill is kept tidy.

Mr. Paice: That raises the question whether it is right that the House should amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 at this stage in the Parliament. The House has already passed legislation to create a Scottish Parliament, which will come into being next year following elections. As I understand it, the issue of roads in Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I suggest that it might be inappropriate at this stage in the Scottish Parliament's development for the House to do anything to alter legislation that the Scottish Parliament could change again 10 months hence.
I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Sutton would address that issue. If her father was a civil engineer, he would know the importance of having legislation absolutely right and tidy. If we are likely to have a change again next year, when there is a Scottish Parliament in place and a Scottish Minister with responsibility for roads in Scotland, one has to ask what is the point of introducing a change now.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who is promoting the Bill, did not choose to explain amendment No. 8, so it falls to me to help the House in its consideration by explaining what it is. The amendment relates to the prospective repeal of sections 30 and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875. When those are repealed, the two sub-paragraphs in question will no longer have any relevance.
I have been to the Library to consult the Explosives Act. In particular, of course, I have consulted sections 30 and 80. Section 30 says:
Gunpowder shall not be hawked, sold, or exposed for sale upon any highway, street, public thoroughfare, or public place. If any gunpowder is hawked, sold, or exposed for sale in contravention of this section—

(1) the person hawking, selling, or exposing for sale the same, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 shillings; and
(2) all or any part of the gunpowder which is so hawked or exposed for sale, or is found in the possession of any person convicted under this section, may be forfeited."


What I do not quite understand—again, presumably, the Minister will not be prepared to tell us; certainly the hon. Member for Sutton was not prepared to tell us—is this. We are repealing or amending part of section 30 of an important measure, which was presumably passed by Parliament, in its wisdom, to protect people on the Queen's highway in Scotland, but it is not clear what the law in Scotland relating to public safety on the public highway will be.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend must recall that all that we have been offered so far by way of explanation is that the father of the promoter of the Bill was a civil engineer with a tidy mind. I do not know what my hon. Friend thinks about that as an explanation. I think that it is patronising and insulting. Unless we get something a lot better from the promoter or the Minister, I cannot see how we can possibly be persuaded of the merits of the amendment.

Mr. Leigh: I strongly suspect that the reason why the hon. Member for Sutton made that fatuous comment is that she had not done what I did, which was fairly elementary. I went back to the Explosives Act to ensure that, rather than these matters just being glibly wafted through the House of Commons without any debate, we considered why we were repealing part of the Act.
Of course I will be reassured on that point. I cannot believe that the Government have made such an elementary error as not to consider properly what is in the Act—of course they have—but we should like an explanation of why, when Parliament in its wisdom, passed section 30, it is now to be repealed.
Schedule 4 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, amending section 80 of the Explosives Act, deals with the penalty for throwing fireworks in the thoroughfare. It says:


If any person throw, cast, or fire any fireworks in or into any highway, street, thoroughfare, or public place, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale".
By the language, my hon. Friends will realise that that is an amendment to the Explosives Act—it is not the original words—but, again, it is an important protection for people going about their lawful business. Section 80 makes it clear that there should be a penalty for throwing fireworks in the thoroughfare.
What could be more unpleasant than going about one's ordinary lawful business on the thoroughfare and finding that someone is throwing fireworks around? This is a matter of public concern, and I hope, therefore, that, before we complete consideration of these matters, we shall get some help from the Minister. Will he assure us that nothing in the Bill as presently drafted, and none of its changes to existing legislation, will in any way lessen public safety on the highway or the protection that the Explosives Act has adequately provided for the best part of 130 years? I hope that I have made my points, and I look forward to the Minister's contribution.

Mr. Maclean: Like my hon. Friends, I thought initially that amendment No. 8 was a fairly innocuous tidying-up measure, and that once we received an explanation from the Minister or the promoter, we might be happy to accept it. I do not hold it against the promoter, but I found her response extraordinary. I put it down to the hon. Lady's inexperience or perhaps to the wrong advice that she was given. However, it was an extraordinarily flippant remark to make—that this is just a tidying-up amendment and that her father, who was no doubt a distinguished engineer, was good at tidying up roads.
The House deserves a better explanation than that. I think that it was because the Minister declined to reply to the previous debate that my hon. Friends divided the House. Unless the hon. Lady can give an explanation that I would find more satisfactory, even I as a broad supporter of tightening fireworks safety, especially for children, would be driven to conclude that she deserved the vote to go against her for treating the House in such a flippant way.
Amendment No. 8 would insert in the schedule the repeal of part of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I do not follow the complex legal arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) produced, and I am slightly surprised that the amendment relates to the legislation that he quoted.
The schedule refers to the Explosives Act 1875, the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, the Explosives (Age of Purchase &c.) Act 1976, the Explosives Act 1875 etc. (Metrication and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 1984, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The contents of the schedule deal with explosives. Suddenly, the promoter is asking us to accept an amendment from another place—the other place has added this amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing not the contents of the schedule, but an amendment, and moreover a drafting amendment.

Mr. Maclean: Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing an amendment that would insert the repeal of

parts of the Roads (Scotland) Act into the schedule, which deals with Acts relating to explosive substances. We have had no clear indication why the Roads (Scotland) Act should be included in the schedule. I would think that it is an innocuous measure. No doubt it deals with interesting and important matters relating to roads in Scotland. What is it about the Act that makes it appropriate to be included in a schedule dealing with explosives legislation?
Does the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984—the hon. Lady should tell us—include provisions relating to fireworks and explosives? I presume that such provisions must be in it somewhere. However, we have not had an explanation setting out why it is relevant for the Act to appear in the schedule and why the House should agree with the other place.
When we were considering the previous group of amendments, I thought that the other place had put forward some sensible suggestions to improve the Bill. We discussed them and the Minister, unfortunately, neglected to reply to the debate. However, we voted the lead amendment through. I think that that was sensible although some of my hon. Friends might have disagreed with the way in which the Minister behaved in refusing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We are discussing Lords amendment No. 8, a drafting amendment.

Mr. Maclean: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not repeat my point.
I hope that in this instance we shall be given an explanation. I was trying to bring my remarks to a close by saying that if the Minister does not want a repeat of what happened earlier, we need an explanation of the relevance of the Roads (Scotland) Act in terms of its inclusion in the schedule.
I used to be familiar with some of the details of roads legislation; I used to take a little interest in it. I cannot for the life of me—I am willing to be informed by the Minister or by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy)—recall the particular provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 that relate to fireworks. I assume that they relate more to explosives. As we are being asked to include the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in the schedule, could we have an explanation of why only Scotland is referred to? Are there not similar requirements for roads in England?
I will not go down that route, because it would be quite out of order, but I believe that the House is entitled to know the relevance of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, when other roads legislation relating to England is either not included or not relevant. Are these matters covered in some of the explosives or fireworks legislation contained in the schedule? The hon. Member for Sutton cannot get away with her skimpy explanation to the House today.
This is an important Bill, which contains a tremendous number of draconian powers, to which I shall not refer again. We have looked sensibly at amendments to the Bill today. These two important amendments were recommended by the other place, and I happen to believe that, in tabling amendments, the other place does a good job. However, we are entitled to a view of what the other place has given us. We need to know from the


Government why the amendments are to be included and their substance, purpose and consequence. Also, if we fail to pass them into law, what will be the effect?
You say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they are technical or drafting amendments. They may be—in your opinion. We do not know from the Minister or the hon. Member for Sutton what they are intended to do. Amendment No. 6 is clearly a drafting amendment.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend, who is a student and has been a practitioner of these matters, will know that an amendment may look innocuous—it may change only one word. However, he would surely concede that that can often contain within it substantial changes to the meaning of a clause, or even to a Bill. It is for that reason that he is right to say that, although there has been no debate on the matter, it is important—if only as a courtesy to the House—for either the promoter of the Bill or the Minister to give us a proper explanation of amendment No. 6, and then a bigger explanation of amendment No. 8.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Although an explanation would have been helpful, I assume that amendment No. 6—with which I was comfortable, and which proposes to delete "this section" and insert "subsection (1)"—would have no unintended legal consequences. However, I may not be correct. Perhaps my right hon. and hon. Friends have a different view. It would appear to be a technical or drafting amendment.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend keeps repeating that this is a technical or drafting amendment, but it is not.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It is.

Mr. Leigh: The Minister says that it is. I hope that he will intervene and explain, because he did even not bother to turn up for the previous debate, let alone reply to the points that I made on safety. Frankly, that was outrageous behaviour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving well away from the point of the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: It appears to me that deleting "this section" and inserting "subsection (1)"—I presume that that is subsection (1) of clause 14—might appear to be a technical amendment, making it simpler to understand. It may have different legal consequences—I am not certain. I am concerned that we have not had an explanation from the hon. Member for Sutton of the legal consequences of deleting "this section" and inserting "subsection (1)", so that the Bill would read:
In subsection (1) 'explosives' has the same meaning as in the Explosives Act 1875.
There could be some unintended consequences.

Mr. Paterson: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the Scottish aspect, and as he comes from Scotland, may I ask him whether he believes that the clause is

compatible with Scottish law? Will there have to be a further redrafting through regulations, given that the Bill is so badly drafted?

Mr. Maclean: I must pick up my hon. Friend on one point. I do not think that there can be a further redraft to correct the anomaly. The Secretary of State has taken powers under almost every clause of the Bill considerably to amend other Acts, including the Explosives Act 1875, but I am not sure that she could redraft the Bill to change any mistakes that he has made in interpreting Scottish law.
None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raised the valid point that the Bill would amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The Bill relates to fireworks and applies to the United Kingdom, but there has been no explanation of its consequences to the Scottish legal system. I believe that—I do not want to go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)—the matter may more appropriately be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, to which such powers will be devolved. However, that is not my main concern, and I may be out of order if I suggest that it would be better to amend the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 through roads legislation or through a devolved measure in the Scottish Parliament.
We are discussing a suggestion from the other place that the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 be added to a schedule of a United Kingdom Act of Parliament that deals with fireworks. I do not think that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle through which to amend that Act, as is suggested by the Act's proposed inclusion in the schedule.

Mr. Forth: The thought has occurred to me—it may have occurred to my right hon. Friend, too; I know how perspicacious he is in these matters—that, as the Bill seems to find it necessary to encroach on Scottish legislation, it will equally affect matters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If so, the Bill could contain a defect, although it is a bit late in the day for us to identify it. Perhaps the Minister or the promoter will make it clear why the Bill seems uniquely to affect Scotland and why, by implication, it does not have a similar effect in other parts of the United Kingdom. Has my right hon. Friend taken that into account in his analysis of the amendment?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend raises a good point. Clause 19 states:
This Act may be cited as the Fireworks Act 1998.
It continues:
This Act extends to Northern Ireland.
I do not want to trespass on any legislation relating to Northern Ireland or on the unique way in which, at the moment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the scope of the amendment. He must confine himself to speaking about whether it is desirable to improve the Bill's drafting as proposed.

Mr. Maclean: Precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being tempted slightly astray. Amendment No. 8 relates to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, but we have a United Kingdom.

Mr. Paice: There seems to be a contradiction. Clause 19 clearly states that the legislation will extend to


Northern Ireland. Moreover, the schedule repeals Northern Ireland legislation. I find it odd that amendment No. 8 will amend Scottish legislation when, as far as I can see, the Bill contains nothing to suggest that it applies to Scotland at all.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. The legislation extends to Northern Ireland. Therefore, the parliamentary rules of interpretation are such that it would be regarded as a United Kingdom Bill, which I assume automatically—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may assume that he is well out of order.

Mr. Maclean: The amendment to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 suggested by the other place clearly applies to Scotland. That is obvious. We have a United Kingdom Act of Parliament before us. When the hon. Member for Sutton, who is promoting the Bill, introduced the amendment from the other place, she gave us no explanation about what it does. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who has considerable legal expertise in such matters, was able to cite accurately from the various statutes those provisions—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are about to move on to the rest of the business. Would it be in order for any right hon. or hon. Members who want to object to state that clearly by standing up, so that it can be shown in the public record that they have objected to one of the forthcoming Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The objections are given in the usual way. It will be observed whether or not they are taken.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

PESTICIDES BILL

Lords amendment considered.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

WASTE MINIMISATION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Third Reading [24 April].

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 77 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Third Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (BEER AND CIDER) BILL

Order read for consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered upon Friday 6 November.

BREEDING AND SALE OF DOGS BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered upon Friday 6 November.

Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) be recorded as having objected to that puppy farming Bill? It should be shown in Hansard that he—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haslehurst): Order. The House has a procedure for the recording of objections, which cannot be altered at this point. A procedure is in place. If it needs to be changed, it must be dealt with in another way.

Mr. David Maclean: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) named me, is it appropriate for Hansard to record that I am supported by all animal welfare organisations, and only the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It suffices that an objection has been taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. We are not debating that matter.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered upon Monday 6 July 1998.

COMPANY AND BUSINESS NAMES (CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ETC.) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Third Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TENDERS BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Further consideration what day?

Ms Oona King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the history of the Bill, which was previously objected to accidentally by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who were gracious enough to acknowledge the fact, and given that the former put it in Hansard that I had gone to extraordinary lengths to deal with the questions raised, would it be in order to ask whether the objection was a mistake, especially as the Bill has the full backing of the Confederation of British Industry?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to say to the hon. Lady that an objection has been taken. Further consideration what day?

Ms King: Friday 6 November.

Further consideration deferred till Friday 6 November.

LABELLING OF PRODUCTS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ACQUISITION AND POSSESSION OF AIR WEAPONS (RESTRICTION) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (EQUITY OF FUNDING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

EMPLOYMENT (AGE DISCRIMINATION IN ADVERTISEMENTS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 November.

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND REMEDIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

WELFARE OF PIGS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HARE COURSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HOUSING SERVICE CHARGES (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SCHOOL CHILDREN'S CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR (VALUE ADDED TAX) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

DOOR SUPERVISORS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FOOTBALL SPONSORSHIP LEVY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

LOCAL EXCHANGE TRADING SCHEMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURY COMPENSATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

CHILDREN'S NURSERIES (SAFETY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hall.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 77 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

LEAD IN PAINT (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

WARM HOMES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION (FIFTEEN YEAR PROGRAMME) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

COLD WEATHER PAYMENTS (WIND CHILL FACTOR) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

RECYCLED CONTENT OF NEWSPRINT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

WATER INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HOME ZONES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [30 January].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 6 November.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

FARMING OF ANIMALS FOR FUR (PROHIBITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

REFORM OF QUARANTINE REGULATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

VOLUNTARY PERSONAL SECURITY CARDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

MILLENNIUM CONFORMITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 July.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

SCHOOL TRANSPORT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

DRINKS CONTAINERS (REDEMPTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

ELECTRICITY GENERATION BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 November.

RESTORATION OF DAMAGE TO SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 July.

POLICE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [13 February].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LANDMINES BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Landmines Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Dowd]

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Landmines Bill, if the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Landmines Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Dowd]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 7th July, the Motion in the name of Mr. William Hague relating to the Social Security Amendment (Lone Parents) Regulations 1998 may be proceeded with as if Standing Order Nos. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)), were applicable thereto.—[Mr. Dowd]

Mr. Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a previous point of order, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) claimed that his objection to my puppy farming Bill had the support of all animal welfare organisations. I want to put the record straight, because that is not true. Both the National Canine Defence League and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals support—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that we cannot have a debate on a point of order.

Orders of the Day — North-East London Probation Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. John Cryer: I thank Madam Speaker for giving me the chance to debate NELPS, the north-east London probation service. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for answering the debate. I know that it is pulling the short straw for Ministers to have to answer on Friday afternoons when they have a long way to travel afterwards. This is my third Friday Adjournment debate. As ever, the House is not a fevered throng of Back Benchers, with one or two exceptions.
A while ago, the national chief probation officer for England, in discussing the lack of resources for the probation service said:
We cannot deliver unless we are adequately resourced.
That is the starting point for my comments.
Without doubt, the problems faced by the Government and the probation service are the result of the actions of the Conservative Government, who, year on year, made a series of cuts and created the mounting paperwork foisted on the service across the country. I chose to debate NELPS because I was approached by individuals working in the service, and because, a few weeks ago, I went to a meeting in Stratford town hall of the National Association of Probation Officers. The desperation and unhappiness of years of cuts and mounting case loads and paperwork was palpable. From that meeting and my communication with individuals, I have found that there is genuine concern among probation officers for the service's future.
The odd thing about the meeting was that all the officers who turned up had been threatened—I use the word advisedly—three times by the management of the probation service. They had had three letters which said something like, "It is only fair to warn members what may happen if they bring the service into disrepute." It was spelled out clearly in three separate letters to every union member at the meeting that any comments that were frowned upon would be met with disciplinary action. I deprecate that action by the management.
More recently, when I secured this debate, I helpfully received a letter from the Association of Chief Officers of Probation describing the national situation. It said:
Although the national allocation from the Home Office to all probation services in 1998/99 was only 0.1 per cent. lower in cash terms than 1997/98, this represents an average real terms cut of 4.7 per cent… The total number of offenders (on community sentences and pre and post release from prison) under criminal supervision by the probation service has increased from 136,000 in 1992 to 184,700 in 1997, a rise of 35 per cent.
That is the national situation.
The local situation in north-east London is that this year NELPS faces a cut of £717,000, or 7 per cent. of its budget. Last year—the last cut made by the previous Government—the cut was £500,000. Meanwhile, case loads have increased dramatically. Some time ago, the previous Government introduced an initiative which my hon. Friend the Minister will know all about. New centres were created for the probation service. The first one in north-east London was in Barking. There are now others in Stratford and in my borough of Havering. The previous Government set up the new centres purely because the


probation service was becoming unmanageable as a result of the increased work load and the cuts introduced by them. They would not admit that then, and they probably would not admit it now, but that is the reality.
In those centres, clients—as they are called these days—have the chance to have alcohol or drug counselling, or whatever else. Sadly, what is happening now and has happened for some time is that clients, especially petty offenders, are seen by such counsellors instead of by probation officers. The reason for setting up the centres was to allow clients to see counsellors as well as having the standard meetings with probation officers and counselling from them.
When the centres were set up, it was said that high-risk clients would be seen individually by probation officers in the old style. However, that is not quite working as it should. When the system was started, each probation officer was told that he or she would have 25 cases. The first team to be set up was given 45 cases each—almost a doubling of the work load. That was immediate, and since then the number has increased again. That is high-risk cases, not low-risk cases. High-risk clients are deemed to be destructive or dangerous.
In community service, each officer used to have a case load of 35. That went up some time ago to 55, and I assume that it is now higher, although the figure is not available. So in all areas we have seen a hugely escalating case load for probation officers.
At the start of 1995, NELPS had 154 probation officers. At the start of this year there were only 126—a cut of 28. In the past two years, NELPS has lost 16 probation officers. This year, the 7 per cent. cut will mean the loss of 20 posts. Not all those posts will be probation officer posts; some will be in administrative support. However, administrative support has also been cut in recent years. For example, some time ago two probation officers had one secretary between them. That has increased to a ratio of one secretary for three probation officers. It is now proposed that there will be one for five. That is against a background of increasing case loads and paperwork, so probation officers now find themselves doing more and more administrative work such as writing letters rather than concentrating on the work they are there to do, which is to deal with some of the most chaotic and destructive individuals in our society and protecting the public from them, in which they have a good record.
A number of officers have told me, and I was told at the meeting in Stratford, that they have to spend every day prioritising casework, because they are overloaded. They are so surrounded by paperwork that they have to prioritise. One of them said to me that what worried her was that one day she would make the wrong decision and prioritise the wrong case, which could mean that someone was in danger or perhaps someone died.
I talked to a probation officer the other day who said that a client came in who was anorexic. She obviously had a criminal past, but she was anorexic. She told him that she had not eaten for three days. He had to say, "There is nothing I can do. I am just up to my eyes in it. I have to deal with other things first." He said to me, "What if I've made a mistake? What if she turns up dead in a week or two because she doesn't start to eat again? But I really have no choice—I have to prioritise my cases."
The result of all that is that the clients, especially those who have been in prison, are seen far less frequently than they were, say, five years ago, which in turn means that they are more likely to reoffend. In addition, it is petty offenders rather than high-risk offenders who are neglected, yet I would argue that it is really petty offenders of whom people are more wary.
In my constituency, many people, especially older people, come to see me, not with any specific problem relating to criminal activity, but because they are generally worried about it. I know that my hon. Friend knows all about that, and that Home Office Ministers spend a lot of time dealing with the increasing fear of crime; however, the sort of people who come to my surgery are not, generally speaking, afraid of armed robbers or murderers, but of petty criminals—they are afraid or being burgled or of their car being pinched and written off.
Yet those are the very criminals who are been seen less and less often by probation officers. People who are given community service orders frequently do not start their orders straight away, even though history leads me to conclude that, statistically, starting a community service order late means that the individual has far less chance of finishing it. That brings us back to the point that people who do not receive the attention of probation officers are more likely to reoffend.
There are clear implications for the Crime and Disorder Bill. The Bill puts more duties on probation officers, and provides for an increase in the resources going to the probation service, but currently the case load of probation officers is increasing while their number is being cut, so there is a risk that the economic tide within the service might act as a destructive force against the legislation.
The latest example of the increase in paperwork is activity sampling, which is basically a time-and-motion study. A probation officer who takes part in activity sampling will make a note of what he or she is doing every 15 minutes of every day for a fortnight, despite the case load and heavy burden of work that is currently on probation officers' plates. Two probation officers to whom I spoke about activity sampling told me that they had not been able to do it; they were not taking part in such studies, because they had far too much work on at the moment and they had better things to do with their time than take part in time-and-motion studies.
Unsurprisingly, sickness levels in the probation service have risen, mainly as a result of stress. For example, within two months of a team being set up at NELPS, it was destroyed, as all seven members went off sick. The vast majority suffered stress-related illnesses, which are becoming more and more common throughout the service.
The evidence is that the probation service does a highly effective job. All the probation officers I have met are deeply committed to their work, but they all tell me that, over a number of years, not only the past year or two, their job satisfaction, enthusiasm and willingness to tackle some of the most fundamental problems of society have drained away. They are overloaded with work and with paperwork, and are prevented from doing the job that they are there to do, which is to look after the most destructive members of society.
My basic plea is to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we can see our way to getting back into the probation service the resources that were taken away by


the previous Government. Can we see our way to reducing the amount of paperwork and administrative work that probation officers have to do and so allow them to get back to their real job, which is to look after former prisoners and other chaotic and destructive people?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on his good fortune in being allocated this Adjournment debate. As he pointed out, this slot in the timetable is probably preferable for a London or south-east-based Member such as himself rather than for a Tynesider like me. I congratulate my hon. Friend also on his choice of subject, because the future of the probation service is very important for crime and disorder policies and the Home Office agenda.
The debate gives me an opportunity that I have not had before at the Dispatch Box to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's father, whom I primarily remember as a Member of the European Parliament. We were representatives at the same time, and we would cheerfully have admitted to having somewhat different views on the European Union. None the less, we worked determinedly and enthusiastically together on the Economic Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, particularly on such issues as the future of manufacturing industry, to which we were both passionately committed.
Let me make it clear that I, and the Home Office, feel that the probation service has a key role to play in the criminal justice system. I was glad that my portfolio gave me responsibility for probation as well as for prisons. It seemed to me that that was a way of emphasising the custodial and non-custodial aspects of sentencing, which are both important.
We know that the previous Government's policy was "prison works", which seemed to imply that there was no other worthwhile form of sentencing or punishment. That is not our view. While prison is appropriate for serious offenders, and can and does work in some cases, probation too can and does work. One of my heartening experiences as a Minister has been to see many examples of good practice in probation services around the country, and the work that is being done through the "what works" agenda to make sure that good practice becomes as widespread as possible.
It is common sense to say that prison is right for some offenders, and punishment in the community is right for others. What matters is that the public are protected, and, whether offenders are being supervised by the probation service or serving a custodial sentence, that their experience is, as far as possible, constructive and likely to reduce their chances of reoffending.
My hon. Friend obviously spent a good deal of time considering resources. I shall respond by explaining the national position on resources, as well as addressing some of the specific issues of the north-east London probation service.
The bulk of probation service funding comes, of course, from central Government. That support increased year by year until 1996–97, when it peaked. Since then, it has been reduced to £346.5 million in 1997–98 and to £343 million in the current year. In real terms, that represents an overall reduction of a little over 7 per cent. By far the largest and

most important component of central Government support is cash-limited current grant, which this year stands at £328.8 million.
For every £4 of the money provided by the Home Office, a further £1 is provided by local government. In other words, 80 per cent. of every probation service's revenue budget comes from central Government, and 20 per cent. from the relevant local authority. I shall explain in a moment how Home Office current grant is divided between the 54 English and Welsh services.
As my hon. Friend recognised, the problems of resources were, by and large, inherited from the previous Government. We made it clear that we were committed to maintaining public spending in line with their spending plans in our first two years in office. Therefore, probation services have been affected as they would have been by the previous Government's spending plans. However, in the meantime, we have set up a comprehensive spending review to take a fresh look at work load and at the priorities across Government, to help us to determine spending for 1999–2000 and beyond. The comprehensive spending review will allow us to ensure that future spending reflects the priorities of this Government, not the previous one.
My hon. Friend mentioned the contact that he had had with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation about the resource needs of the probation service. In a recent letter to Members of Parliament, ACOP drew attention to the fact that the overall number of probation service staff is decreasing due to financial pressures, while work load continues to rise.
The Government's position on that is clear. We recognise that the probation service as a whole has handled an increased work load with reduced resources, and has streamlined its operations and achieved important efficiency gains. None the less, it is apparent from the data available to the Home Office, particularly the inspection reports prepared by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, that there are still wide variations in performance between services.
When I looked at the figures for unit costs, I noticed that there was a marked difference between the different aspects of the probation service's work. For example, the costs of writing pre-sentence reports and welfare reports, and of supervising offenders on probation orders, varied considerably across the service. Although we must bear in mind the fact that, in some cases, there are good reasons for that, in others the reasons seem to be less clear cut. My hon. Friend will understand that we have a responsibility to ensure that the variations can be explained by valid reasons, not simply by variations in standard between one service and another.
My hon. Friend asked me about Government funding of the probation service. We recognise that Government funding will need to take account of genuinely new work, such as the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill. A number of provisions in that Bill, such as the drug treatment and testing orders, home detention curfew and extended supervision, have considerable work load implications for the probation service. Although some of those measures will be piloted in the first instance, particularly drug treatment and testing orders, we must ensure that the measures that we are introducing are properly resourced, so that they are brought in as the House would want, once the legislation has been approved.
As my hon. Friend knows, the finance planning process associated with the comprehensive spending review is now coming to an end, and before long the Government will announce the outcome. Therefore, some of the answers to my hon. Friend's questions will be contained in that announcement. The overall Home Office grant available to the probation service will then be allocated by means of a funding formula that takes account of each service's major items of work load, together with demographic factors, in order to rank the 54 English and Welsh probation service areas according to their comparative resource needs.
Before this debate, I looked at the resource figures for north-east London, and was interested to see that, in recent years, its proportion of total available Home Office current grant has remained pretty much the same. I also compared the position of NELPS with that of the neighbouring services in London and the south-east. I found that, in light of the funding that has been made available to neighbouring areas, which have many similar problems and challenges, it has not in any sense been unfairly discriminated against.
Obviously, because figures are not yet available, it is impossible for me to say today whether NELPS's proportion of next year's Home Office grant will be similar to this year's, but I give my hon. Friend an assurance that, under the formula, we shall carefully study the relative needs of different probation areas, to try to ensure that we are satisfied that the allocations between different areas are as fair as they can possibly be.
My hon. Friend mentioned contacts that he had had with the local branch of the National Association of Probation Officers. I have seen the press release that the branch produced on 1 June 1998, and the response from the deputy chief of NELPS, which my hon. Friend referred to. There was some disagreement between the two about the actual effects of financial pressures, but I am advised that the figures for probation officer posts lost were less dramatic than the press release said.
I believe that the press release mentioned 16, whereas I understand that the reduction in the number of probation officer posts was five, or nine if one includes all probation grade posts, including managers. There have been no compulsory redundancies in that process, although I accept the staff's real concerns about the stress that they are under, and their worries about being unable to carry out their tasks effectively.
Some of the points that my hon. Friend made, especially about secretarial back-up and so on, relate to matters which are also capable of being addressed by a more successful implementation of information technology in the probation service. The Home Office and I are keen that the probation service should benefit from

the most modern information technology available, allowing probation service officers to access information directly from the system. That will help with many secretarial tasks, and it will represent an important gain, in that it will allow information to be collected quickly and more efficiently, and transmitted much more efficiently to other parts of the criminal justice system.
There is a real need to enable information technology systems in the criminal justice system to talk to one another much more directly, and to have much more direct communication than they have had until now. That will ensure that prisons, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the other parts of the system communicate more effectively, and reduce delays in the system, which are expensive—sometimes for the probation service in particular. We want to reduce delays to a minimum.
None the less, I do not want to be too alarmist about some of the probation service's difficulties. I believe, on the basis of information that has been given to me by Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation, that there is no evidence that the public are being jeopardised as a result of recent pressures. I am very glad that, these days, the probation service works closely with the police, local authorities and social services in assessing risk; as a result, performance in that respect is improving.
The press release issued by the branch of NAPO spoke of some of the difficulties caused by the need for officers to deal with more prisoners as a result of the probation work they do in prison. It also said that sometimes those prisoners are held a long way from home, requiring probation officers to make quite long journeys. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that we are keen to address some of those issues in the prisons probation review.
We have already concluded our review, and shall be going out to consultation in the near future. During that consultation process, we will be keen to ensure that probation services and prison establishments feel that they can submit their views for our consideration. As the purpose of the review is to promote greater and more efficient integrated working between the prison and probation services, we believe that it presents a real opportunity for probation services to advance ideas not only about how they can become more efficient but about future Home Office funding priorities and probation service work.
We are conscious of the fact that probation officers invest a great deal of time in dealing effectively with offenders. It also true that there has been some pressure—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Three o'clock.